Should they banish the Death Sentence?

[montymike]

What are your views on capital punishment? Should it be banished? When asking this question there are many factors to take into account, such as error rate, cost of keeping prisoners compared to carrying out executions, whether exposed murderers/terrorists should be allowed to live, etc, etc.

It's also important to look at what purpose the death sentence serves. Is it used as an example to other potential criminals in the hope of reducing murders? Is it to get rid of that person for good, thus alleviating their risk to society. I don't know....

What are your thoughts? - should it be banished?

Here are some interesting studies on the issue:

http://ccjr.policy.net/cjedfund/jpreport/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=385

Note to Mod: Please move this to 'US Politics' forum. Thanks.

 

[ShamMol]

Each side it seems has good numbers to support their side so really it comes down to a case of morality and human rights. In that way, the case imho is quite clear. Whenever something becomes a being and stays one, we as a society must do all we can to protect it...but that isn't the opinion of the majority in the US so, I guess it has no relevance.

 

[Billo_Really]

It's funny. My mother voted for Bush because she said he was "pro-life". I couldn't stop laughing at this. I told her, "You consider a man, that while he was govenor executed more people than any other govenor in the history of our country, as being "pro-life"? That is too funny.

I don't know what it is about people from Texas. They seem to have a death fetish.

I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?

 

[GarzaUK]

I'm against the Death pelanty, only the US implements it in the Western World. The Death Pelanty just reeks of vengence not justice. Of course victims that have been caused so much pain and anger would want to see his/her dead but that does not mean it is right to take a life away.
Many who live deserve death, many who die deserve life. How can we as a morale society arrogantly think that we have a right to end someones life?

Surely a worse punishment would to spend his/her life behind bars without parole - it would be cheaper than seeing him executed. Convicts have commited suicide to escape the torment of prison.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Not only should it be expanded.It should be returned to more gruesome forms,Eletrocution,Gas chamber.The form of execution coud have a remedial effect.Most important it should be made to happen faster ! no 600 people on death Row,like in California.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Don't forget stoning!

I am against the death penalty.

 

[Plain old me]

I am against the death penalty. I feel that government sponsered revenge is a bad idea. I think more focus should be made on punishment, by way of imprisonment, life for major crimes, and rehabilitation.

 

[KevinWan]

It's funny. My mother voted for Bush because she said he was "pro-life". I couldn't stop laughing at this. I told her, "You consider a man, that while he was govenor executed more people than any other govenor in the history of our country, as being "pro-life"? That is too funny.

I don't know what it is about people from Texas. They seem to have a death fetish.

I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?

Its even funnier how liberals are "pro-choice," but don't consider the simple choice of whether or not the baby wants to actually have the choice to live or not. The death sentence kills guiltylife, abortion kills innocent life. Theres clearly a difference. However, I do agree with you to some degree on the death penelty. I feel it is more of a punishment to suffer in a horrible prison for the rest of your life, rather than die instantly.. and thats that.

 

[Navy Pride]

It's funny. My mother voted for Bush because she said he was "pro-life". I couldn't stop laughing at this. I told her, "You consider a man, that while he was govenor executed more people than any other govenor in the history of our country, as being "pro-life"? That is too funny.

I don't know what it is about people from Texas. They seem to have a death fetish.

I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?

Yeah but don't you find it odd that the people that are against the death penalty that punishes people for horrific crimes they committed are the same people that have no problem in murdering 40,000,000 innocent babies in the womb who have committed no crime since 1972?

 

[Navy Pride]

I often wonder how you people who are for the rights of murderers and rapists and are against the death penalty would feel if it was the wife, mother, or daughter who was viciously murdered and raped........I wonder if these bleeding hearts would feel the same way..........

 

[Kelzie]

I often wonder how you people who are for the rights of murderers and rapists and are against the death penalty would feel if it was the wife, mother, or daughter who was viciously murdered and raped........I wonder if these bleeding hearts would feel the same way..........

No I wouldn't feel the same way. I would want the SOB tortured to death in a slow and painful way. But I call that revenge. Not justice.

 

[Navy Pride]

No I wouldn't feel the same way. I would want the SOB tortured to death in a slow and painful way. But I call that revenge. Not justice.

So are you saying that if a family member was butchered by one of these scum you would not want and eye for and eye? A little confused here, sorry...

 

[montymike]

So are you saying that if a family member was butchered by one of these scum you would not want and eye for and eye? A little confused here, sorry...

If you were to torture someone who committed a horrible crime you are only bringing yourself down to their level. And as Kelzie quite rightly said - that's revenge, not justice.

Don't forget, a lot of those people are beaten to death in prison.....

 

[mistermain]

I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?

The death penalty is not a deterrent, but that is only because we do not carry it out quickly enough. A punishment must be swift and severe if it is to be an effective deterrent. Allowing death row inmates decades worth of appeals defeats the purpose of the death penalty.
Maybe we would have more success if trials, appeals, and punishment were carried out in a specific time period, not to exceed say one year (maybe less). Of course the justice system needs some fine tuning. The rate of error in conviction is way to high. I do not know what the answer is to that.

 

[Brigand]

So are you saying that if a family member was butchered by one of these scum you would not want and eye for and eye? A little confused here, sorry...

Sure, an 'eye for an eye'...question is, at what extent do you then decide to put a 'limit' on your entire 'eye for an eye' reasoning, behind solving our catastrophe's?

 

[Brigand]

The death penalty is not a deterrent, but that is only because we do not carry it out quickly enough. A punishment must be swift and severe if it is to be an effective deterrent. Allowing death row inmates decades worth of appeals defeats the purpose of the death penalty.
Maybe we would have more success if trials, appeals, and punishment were carried out in a specific time period, not to exceed say one year (maybe less). Of course the justice system needs some fine tuning. The rate of error in conviction is way to high. I do not know what the answer is to that.

You don't have an answer on how to solve or dramatically reduce the high error rate of death convinctions..

But.."We need to kill 'em quick, anyway, and that will surely stop the beggers from killing....after a little fine tuning...that I don't know how to do!"

 

[kal-el]

If you were to torture someone who committed a horrible crime you are only bringing yourself down to their level. And as Kelzie quite rightly said - that's revenge, not justice.

Don't forget, a lot of those people are beaten to death in prison.....

Exactly. Who gives us the right to kill someone coldly, in a pre-meditated manner?

 

[mistermain]

You don't have an answer on how to solve or dramatically reduce the high error rate of death convinctions..

But.."We need to kill 'em quick, anyway, and that will surely stop the beggers from killing....after a little fine tuning...that I don't know how to do!"

Why did you use quotation marks on a sentence that I never typed? I said none of this. I said that quick action is necessary for a deterrent to work, and that part of the reason crime is so rampant in the United States is because of the lack of carrying out a swift punishment. I do believe crime rates would drop dramatically if the punishments were carried out in a more timely manner.

However, one issue that greatly concerns me is the error rate in conviction. If given the power I would enact swifter punishments. There would need to be some fine tuning with the judicial system (where I do not claim to be an expert), but if we do not take steps in a direction, we will never find a better answer to this problem.

Next time you want to debate, spare the liberal rhetoric. "Stop the beggers from killing." Yeah, that's exactly what I said smart guy.

 

[Brigand]

Hey, look. This debate ain't got too far, for one to get lost in. So anyone can quite clearly see that you didn't use those words I put between the quotes. It's called paraphrasing. It's essentially echoing your words, albeit, less wordy.

What I said, is exactly what you said..'Kill 'em quicker, fine tune the system, don't know how, though'.

If, were going to talk about rhetoric then we need only but look at your words of wisdom. It's pub talk. A few pints of lager, a couple of doubles and a packet of crisps and talk about ridding the world of it's probems.

Yes, I am a smart guy, fella. Thankyou for pointing it out, also.

Your logic fails because of this: If you recognize a fault with a particular system, then you define what the fault is. You then go about twirling a few ideas around on how to alleviate the problem. Take the cost and benefits of each idea and do the math. Then talk about implimentation of the appropriate plan.
1) Now, the problems are:-
A high crime rate
A high error rate of convictions.

2) Take your ideas on how to alleviate the problems:-
For the crime rate, you say: Substantially reduce the time to kill convicts.
3) Do the Cost/Benefit math:-
Have you done this? enlighten me, if you have.
4) Impliment your idea:-
Let's deal with step 3. Also, you haven't given any ideas on how to reduce the high error rate of convinction, yet...you've only said "I don't know how to do it".
Use the plan, man.
There is no logic behind statements like: "I don't know how to do it....But it will Work!!!."

I've got an idea on a way of reducing the error rate of death convictions...Give more time for reviewing a case and the appeals. But, that essentially goes against the grain of your - "Kill them quicker" policy.

 

[mistermain]

Your logic fails because of this: If you recognize a fault with a particular system, then you define what the fault is. You then go about twirling a few ideas around on how to alleviate the problem. Take the cost and benefits of each idea and do the math. Then talk about implimentation of the appropriate plan.
1) Now, the problems are:-
A high crime rate
A high error rate of convictions.

2) Take your ideas on how to alleviate the problems:-
For the crime rate, you say: Substantially reduce the time to kill convicts.
3) Do the Cost/Benefit math:-
Have you done this? enlighten me, if you have.
4) Impliment your idea:-
Let's deal with step 3. Also, you haven't given any ideas on how to reduce the high error rate of convinction, yet...you've only said "I don't know how to do it".
Use the plan, man.
There is no logic behind statements like: "I don't know how to do it....But it will Work!!!."

That was fairly incoherrent.
First, who says I need to solve all the problems. I poised a solution to the first problem of lowering the crime rate. Maybe it is a pub talk, but neither one of us are trying to pass any laws here.

The original post asked why we have a death penalty if it is not a deterent. I simply explained that is not an effective deterrent when it is not implemented correctly. I never said I was for using the death penalty at all however, so your "paraphrasing" was more like an assumption.

I do not have all the answers, that is why I poised the second one regarding the error rate in conviction. This is a debate, and discussion forum. We are not necessarily here to destroy each other's ideas. I have no good ideas about cutting down the rate of wrongful convictions. If anybody does, let's hear them.

 

[Brigand]

That was fairly incoherrent.

If it's so incoherent, why have you been able to provide an appropriate response to everything I said?

First, who says I need to solve all the problems.

Not me.

The original post asked why we have a death penalty if it is not a deterent. I simply explained that is not an effective deterrent when it is not implemented correctly. I never said I was for using the death penalty.

NOW, thats inchorence! and one BIG contradiction.

We are not necessarily here to destroy each other's ideas.

Not if the ideas are good ones and fairly proved to be good ones. but you haven't said why your ideas are good.

It's a debate. Which means we're allowed to disect each others words, ideas and plans. If I say... Every home should be give a servant at the cost of the Banks. Then it sounds pretty good, But it deserves to be taken apart.
If I also say, We should give free crack cocaine to every man woman and child, then I think it should be destroyed.

 

[Brigand]

MISTERMAIN QUOTES:
I have no good ideas about cutting down the rate of wrongful convictions. If anybody does, let's hear them.

I gave you one, just.

BRIGAND QUOTES:
I've got an idea on a way of reducing the error rate of death convictions...Give more time for reviewing a case and the appeals.

 

[mistermain]

MISTERMAIN QUOTES:
I have no good ideas about cutting down the rate of wrongful convictions. If anybody does, let's hear them.

I gave you one, just.

BRIGAND QUOTES:
I've got an idea on a way of reducing the error rate of death convictions...Give more time for reviewing a case and the appeals.

That's your answer? Some of these trials already stretch out over six months. O.J. was given one of the longest trials in recent memory, and they still gave the wrong verdict (if you fell otherwise, please start a different thread). I asked for good ideas.

 

[thapcballa]

I know sometime when comes down to it, it seems like someone deserves the death penalty. But people always complain about high taxes and it costs more money to put someone to death with the death penalty than to keep them in prison for life. I know that doesn't sound right but after all the appeals, its way more expensive.

 

[Brigand]

That's your answer? Some of these trials already stretch out over six months. O.J. was given one of the longest trials in recent memory, and they still gave the wrong verdict (if you fell otherwise, please start a different thread). I asked for good ideas.

You didn't ask for an answer, You asked for an 'idea'. We're talking about 'ideas' and that was my point in the first place..devising ideas, man. Furthermore, It's FAR better than your...."Duh, I don't know want to do" utterance..

Look, I have no clue, whatsoever, as to what OJ Simpsons trial has got to do with reducing crime rate, by cutting short the time to carry out death sentences on people.

...And I don't want to know. It's now twice now, that you've thoroughly made no sense and had the effrontery to say that I was incoherent!

This conversation is done, Killa!