[rocket]

I'm having an ongoing email debate with a local radio talk show host. He is against the Death Penalty and I am for it. He says that he is Pro-life across the board and I am only Pro-life for the innocent. IMO if you go on a rampage and kill 5 people you shouldn't live. period. There are some pretty intelligent people on this site on both sides of the issue so if you have the time state your case For or Against.

[sheepofblue]

Surprisingly the extreme right wing sheep is against.

Basically it comes to a few things
1) What if the state is wrong and murders someone
2) If I kill when I can avoid it I am no better than those I condemn
3) I do not believe in killing and therefore should not ask someone else to be the executioner. While a family member might volunteer, killing for revenge is also a bottomless pit with no return.

Having said this I do understand a lot of the reasons people are for it including the assurance that the killer cannot ever return to society for a repeat.

Oh and I ask people to keep this polite. This is a very rough topic but I would welcome the opportunity to read thoughtful and polite posts on this.

[Johnny Diablo]

Originally Posted by rocket

I'm having an ongoing email debate with a local radio talk show host. He is against the Death Penalty and I am for it. He says that he is Pro-life across the board and I am only Pro-life for the innocent. IMO if you go on a rampage and kill 5 people you shouldn't live. period. There are some pretty intelligent people on this site on both sides of the issue so if you have the time state your case For or Against.

I am completely with you on your stance Rocket.

My only concern is that well the cops do lie and the DA likes to win. The legal system is flawed. Give me a more foolproof way other than a jury of picked over gulible peers and I can say ...Hang em high!

[oldfogey]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Surprisingly the extreme right wing sheep is against.

Basically it comes to a few things
1) What if the state is wrong and murders someone
2) If I kill when I can avoid it I am no better than those I condemn.

I agree, the state doesn't give life and shouldn't have the right to take it away.

Most murderers are either drug addicts or in a close relationship with the person they kill, rather than being cold-blooded killers with intent. The former two big groups are likely not to repeat if given support and help.

IMO the only argument for "the death penalty" is that it's so much cheaper to kill someone than maintain them in jail for twenty years that if they choose to die rather than stay alive in prison the state might give them the means to commit suicide.

[figment]

Originally Posted by oldfogey

I agree, the state doesn't give life and shouldn't have the right to take it away.

So the corner drug thug is going to have more "power" than the "state"?
not in Texas.

[ccwilli3]

I think its justified for certain offences. Gruesome and explicity descriptions aside, one shouldn't be getting the DP for just something random. It must be justified. I am not prepared to make that call, but if an average law abiding citizen should/would find an offense in-excusable, go for it...

Crimes of malicious and violent intent should "get it"... Someone running into someone in a car and killing them in an accident, no, it was just that, an accident... AKA, man-slaughter. However, someone that kills, tortures and mames someone to death has no place in our society and should be removed from it swiftly and promptly. My opinion of course...

[ND4SPD]

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by oldfogey

Most murderers are either drug addicts or in a close relationship with the person they kill, rather than being cold-blooded killers with intent. The former two big groups are likely not to repeat if given support and help.

And it costs a hell of a lot more to kill someone than keep them alive. To me this is the second best argument AGAINST (I need to wake up this morning).

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by ccwilli3

I think its justified for certain offences. Gruesome and explicity descriptions aside, one shouldn't be getting the DP for just something random. It must be justified. I am not prepared to make that call, but if an average law abiding citizen should/would find an offense in-excusable, go for it...

Crimes of malicious and violent intent should "get it"... Someone running into someone in a car and killing them in an accident, no, it was just that, an accident... AKA, man-slaughter. However, someone that kills, tortures and mames someone to death has no place in our society and should be removed from it swiftly and promptly. My opinion of course...

Certain offenses? That is part of my problem, where to draw the line. Manson, Dahmer no problem but then you have to find a less distinct case. In the end I think a permanent cage is the best choice

Also if my mind is working right in the pre-caffiene mode there are places that have death penalty for drug offenses ??? I might be wrong on that though.

[oldfogey]

Originally Posted by figment

So the corner drug thug is going to have more "power" than the "state"?
not in Texas.

Sadly, by definition the drug thug who kills has more power at the time he commits murder than does the state. When he's caught, convicted and detained he's then at the mercy of the state. The question is then: what should we do with the guy / gal?

First, are we sure we didn't make a mistake when he or she was identified and when the evidence was presented? UK murder cases have many examples where, after conviction, the appeal process has shown the person to be wrongly convicted. In the days when we hanged murderers, that included people who had been killed by the state.

Second, is there not a decent chance the murderer could be a safe member of society despite the terrible crime? Most murders in the UK are of close, family members, what the French might call a crime passionel, and there is plenty of evidence that such people do not repeat murder.

I know in the States there is more gun crime, and therefore a higher level of murders. See debates elsewhere with Aussies, me and others about this issue.

I also know that the issue of deterrence is an emotive one and that many people believe in "an eye for an eye". Surely here there is room for some scientific proof of whether deterrence makes a difference in the case of murder, and if so in what categories of murder. Information,anyone?

[QuikMike]

I think I'll chime in hear as well....

I am, for the most part, against the death penalty...I think someone said it earlier, the state cannot give life, therefore, it shouldn't have to right to take it away....but, as I've grown a tad older, it just sickens me to see some of the crimes that are being committed...and it makes me wonder, why should this person remain in our society? let's do society a favor and take em out...but, whom am I to decide who should live and who should die? I think mass murderers like Dahmer and Manson probably deserve the death penalty...it's basically a moral issue....would I feel differently if say, my mom or wife, was murdered by someone...I would probably want that person dead as well....but that is revenge and hatred speaking and I am not proud of that...I'm sure it costs a lot more to keep an inmate on death row for 18 years than it does to give them "the needle" or "the chair" once...

It's a conflicted issue for sure, but if you ask me 10 times, I'll probably say 9 times that I am against it..

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by QuikMike

I'm sure it costs a lot more to keep an inmate on death row for 18 years than it does to give them "the needle" or "the chair" once...

True, the needle and death potion cost less than $10. But the court fees to execute someone cost more than it would to convict for life and house an inmate for 60 years.

[sheepofblue]

[quote=oldfogey]...Second, is there not a decent chance the murderer could be a safe member of society despite the terrible crime? Most murders in the UK are of close, family members, what the French might call a crime passionel, and there is plenty of evidence that such people do not repeat murder. ...QUOTE]
Actually I am more worried about someone who could lose it so much as to injure let alone kill a family member. That points to a violent nature and total lack of control. Of course there are exceptions (guy walks in on wife in bed with somone etc).

Still opposed though

[RWB929]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Certain offenses? That is part of my problem, where to draw the line. Manson, Dahmer no problem but then you have to find a less distinct case. In the end I think a permanent cage is the best choice

I agree.To draw a line stating that if someone kills more than say, 5 people, you automatically get the DP puts a price on life.How will the families of victims of say a person who kills 3 or 4 people but doesn't get the DP feel?Aren't the graves of their children just as meaningfull as others.
However I do agree with the DP in certain circumstances, I just haven't been able to define those circumstances yet.An example of a person "deserving" the DP was the guy (forgot his name) who parked a bomb under the nursery of the FBI building.He wanted to make a statement against government but chose to make that statement by killing children.He knew where the nursery was and he targeted it.I don't remember how many people died but felt that the DP was justified.This is the kind of circumstance that I feel warrants the DP.
Prison is meant to be two things.A deterrent to crime and a means to reform those who commit crimes.It's obviously not a big enough deterrent as people are still killing others.The DP is also meant to be a deterrent but again it's not working.I don't agree that the solution to those who commit horrific crimes is a life in prison until they die, what sort of possible life can they have?If they can't be reformed or their crime is too great to allow them to be released again on society why bother to keep them alive.What exactly will be the purpose of their life.
I had this debate with my uncle a few months ago and he said that by giving someone the DP the state was in effect making them martyrs/heros to whatever "cause" they were trying to do to begin with.He said lock them away and people will forget about them, end of story.This doesn't work either.Manson is proof of it too.How many marriage proposals has he gotten while in prison?Every time he went for parole he had hoards of screaming women trying to get near him.People are always going to follow sick ideals, they don't need martyrs to do so.
I also agree though that the state can't kill someone for revenge.Doing so completely undermines the use of the DP.
The only argument against the DP that I concede is that on occasion innocent people do get sent to prison and killing them only to later discover their innocence would be horrendous but again if they get locked away for all their life never to have their conviction reversed what kind of a life do they have?

[colryn]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

And it costs a hell of a lot more to kill someone than keep them alive. To me this is the second best argument AGAINST (I need to wake up this morning).

Flaw in the judicial system is to blame for this event. Way too many appeals in the process. How many times should a convicted killer hear that he was found guilty of his peers? I will give him two, not 10.

Go State of Texas!!!!!!

[figment]

Originally Posted by oldfogey

Sadly, by definition the drug thug who kills has more power at the time he commits murder than does the state. When he's caught, convicted and detained he's then at the mercy of the state. The question is then: what should we do with the guy / gal?

First, are we sure we didn't make a mistake when he or she was identified and when the evidence was presented? UK murder cases have many examples where, after conviction, the appeal process has shown the person to be wrongly convicted. In the days when we hanged murderers, that included people who had been killed by the state.

Second, is there not a decent chance the murderer could be a safe member of society despite the terrible crime? Most murders in the UK are of close, family members, what the French might call a crime passionel, and there is plenty of evidence that such people do not repeat murder.

I know in the States there is more gun crime, and therefore a higher level of murders. See debates elsewhere with Aussies, me and others about this issue.

I also know that the issue of deterrence is an emotive one and that many people believe in "an eye for an eye". Surely here there is room for some scientific proof of whether deterrence makes a difference in the case of murder, and if so in what categories of murder. Information,anyone?

Fallacy #1, the Death penalty is a prevention.

The death penalty is NOT a prevention/punishment, it's retribution/payment. Prisons by their definition are rehabilitative but by function enablers of deviant, anti-social behavior.

Fallacy #2. Fear of judicial process
If you fear mistakes why perform any law enforcement, that’s a fallacy too.

[asiliat]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Surprisingly the extreme right wing sheep is against.

Basically it comes to a few things
1) What if the state is wrong and murders someone

So if DNA evidence can prove someone innocent, it also means we can prove them guilty, if that's the case, then in crimes of 1st degree murder (where it is pre-meditated, I think we can execute.

They can still repent and find God before they go, but accepting Christ does not mean you avoid punishment completely. It just means you go to Heaven.

[Proto]

The US keeps good company. From Amnesty International

Since 2000, only five countries are known to have executed juvenile offenders: China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, and the USA. 13 of these 21 executions have been in the USA. On January 21, 2004, Amnesty International launched its Stop Child Executions campaigning action to end this "shameful practice" once and for all.

Compassionate too.

The execution of those with mental illness or ?the insane? is clearly prohibited by international law and virtually every country in the world. Despite these standards, and constitutional law, the USA continues to execute people with diagnosed schizophrenia, those that suffer from severe delusions, and others with clinically-labeled mental illnesses.
- Ford v. Wainwright: U.S. constitutional law is in line with the many international safeguards evident in the 1986 ruling of Ford v. Wainwright that the execution of someone who does not understand the reason for, or the reality of, his or her punishment is unconstitutional.

Have a read of the Amnesty Q & A Page

Deterrent?

What do you say to the argument that the death penalty is an important tool for a state to fight crime?


Too many governments believe that they can solve urgent social or political problems by executing a few or even hundreds of their prisoners. Too many citizens in too many countries are still unaware that the death penalty offers society not further protection but further brutalization.


Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 , concluded: ". . . research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis".


It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crimes are highly unstable or mentally ill -- the execution of Larry Robison, diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, in the USA on 21 January 2000 is just one such example. In none of these cases can the fear of the death penalty be expected to deter. Moreover, those who do commit premeditated serious crimes may decide to proceed despite the risks in the belief that they will not be caught. The key to deterrence in such cases is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction.


The fact that no clear evidence exists to show that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect points to the futility and danger of relying on the deterrence hypothesis as a basis for public policy on the death penalty. The death penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime.

[luvtolean]

13 of 21 juvenile executions in the USA?

Whoever wrote that **** doesn't know anything about China then.

BTW you do know what "amnesty" means right? They might be biased in their studies...about like going to PETA to ask about the morality of eating a steak for dinner.

By definition, a murderer is not "sane". Kinda like the conundrum of Yossarian in Catch 22....

[Proto]

I think China was reported as executing 50000 people last year. Terrible Human Rights abuse. Still they are too big to fight so let them get on with it. Unlike some other countries eh?

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Proto

I think China was reported as executing 50000 people last year. Terrible Human Rights abuse. Still they are too big to fight so let them get on with it. Unlike some other countries eh?

So smooth