The death penalty has provoked heated discussion since biblical times, and today the debate remains as controversial as ever. Is such a sentence ever justified? Capital punishment is an intensely emotional topic for everyone involved because it sits at the intersection of life, death and the very definition of the word 'justice.'
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The death penalty should not be abolished but should only be applied to the most reprehensible individuals. The cruel and degrading aspect only comes into play because of the extremely long appeals process. We need to have it shortened.
- redondo July 14, 2008 10:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The U.S. should abolish the Death Penalty because death is no penalty.
- Monitor July 28, 2008 11:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Almost all people, who receive the death penalty, have schown by their heinous acts, that they are destitute of a moral sense. But this makes them just more or less intelligent animals. Animals have no human rights.
- eXtremeLogic July 28, 2008 5:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
A right to exist is true if and only if the being in question is in harmony with its surroundings. Cancer are cells that are not inharmony with the body. The cancer does not have a right to exist and is therefore erradicated.
People who murder intentionally and repeatedly are not inharmony with their surroundings-that is society. Therefore, their right to exist is forfeited and therefore should be exterminated.
But, this argument is only valid when the assumption is made that all or some individuals are permanently incapable of living harmoniously within society. Inotherwords, are humans more akin to a tool, fixed to one function? Or are they more like a violin, a tool that is capable of functioning in harmony with other tools.
The root of the argument comes down to this. Is the right to exist absolute? If it is then the argument against the death penalty is sound. But if the right to exist is not absolute then the argument for the death penalt is sound.
- tallguy August 12, 2008 7:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
our society is run by oppressive criminals. on every tere in every faction of society. Dirty people. they do not want to see any kind of reprisals for their existence . These people, in the lap of luxury have no need for such perspectives. In my opinion every liar should be sentenced to death. I'm not saying that those who don't know the wing speed of an unladen swallow be condemned, but as society goal, that's what we need to work for. There was a story in the paper. a man broke into someone's home and was found pawing at these people's 5 year old daughter with a tube sex lube in his hand. He got away but was caught later. In new jersey, this man is considered a hero. The police can not touch him. He was taken to a club resort in a nice rural area. It house 750 others sexual offenders at the expense of over 200 million dollars to the tax payer.
I say simply execute the guilty parties. the guilty being everyone who remove this man from justice. I advocate death for his parents , his school teachers, the court room, the leigislatures, ect ect. I just don't belive having your home viloated and your 5 year old violated, is acceptable society.
The liberals don't agree. I would rather not live with those people, and there is no european destination free of the liberal. In eesence, you can no long have children free of the tyranny of satanic an evil librals. that's very simple. my solution is simply too. starve the people.
You shall wither and die.
- jxzac April 16, 2009 9:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
Dudley Sharp, contact info below
Some wrongly state that executions are a human rights violation. The human rights violation argument often comes from European leadership and human rights organizations.
The argument is as follows: Life is a fundamental human right. Therefore, taking it away is a fundamental violation of human rights.
Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement. What opponents of capital punishment really are saying is that they just don't approve of executions.
Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights. On this, there is virtually no disagreement. However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society 's laws.
So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.
No one disputes that taking freedom away is a different result than taking life away. However, the issue is the incorrect claim that taking away fundamental human rights -- be that freedom or life -- is a human rights violation. It is not. It depends specifically on the circumstances.
How do we know? Because those very same governments and human rights stalwarts, rightly, tell us so. Universally, both governments and human rights organizations approve and encourage taking away the fundamental human right of freedom, as a proper response to some criminal activity.
Why do governments and human rights organizations not condemn just incarceration of criminals as a fundamental human rights violation? Because they think incarceration is just fine.
Why do some of those same groups condemn execution as a human rights violation? Only because they don't like it. They have no moral or philosophical foundation for calling execution a human rights violation.
In the context of criminals violating the social contract, those criminals have voluntarily subjected themselves to the laws of the state. And they have knowingly placed themselves in a position where their fundamental human rights of freedom and life are subject to being forfeit by their actions.
Opinion is only worth the value of its foundation. Those who call execution a human rights violation have no credible foundation for that claim. What they are really saying is "We just don't like it."
copyright 2005-2009, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
- dudleysharp
June 15, 2009 4:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I spoke to a priest and he said that self defense such as in war time or when we are defending ourselves from an intruder or protecting someone else from an intruder is acceptable even if that defense should lead to death and is not murder . When we discussed whether the death penalty was murder he said that if the person cannot be rehabilitated then the death penalty is no different than self defense since this person is a danger to himself and society it is self defense or the defense of someone elses life to put this person to death. I agree with his explanation and from that day forward have had no problems with the death penalty. I do however have problems with men running their corrupted system and too often use the criminal and judicial system to harm good men/woman due to vast corruption.
So I say start by executing all corrupted officials in the police forces and judicial systems and then work up to the political systems and then I bet the rest would take notice and youd have to do fewer executions in the private sector. You think?
- angelmama August 19, 2009 1:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I think this is the closest you've come to saying something I agree with...
The death penalty , as currently applied, is fought with both errors and corruption. Far to many cases have been overturned years later of me to have any comfort in how the death penalty is applied. Advocating for the death penalty means accepting that sometimes the government will execute someone who is innocent (even if we somehow removed all of the corruption from the system there would still be errors). That is something that I cannot accept in good conscience.
"So I say start by executing all corrupted officials in the police forces and judicial systems and then work up to the political systems and then I bet the rest would take notice and youd have to do fewer executions in the private sector."
There are plenty of people that I think should be 'Wed to the rope-makers daughter and taught to fly'... but that is an emotional response, and thus is not useful in making rational decisions.
- MrBook September 9, 2009 6:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I have wished that the death penalty could be implemented in heinous multiple murder cases. After experience in the justice system from the left side of the drug war I no longer believe in the death penalty, the system is corrupt and biased. We know that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks yet the Bush administration attacked Iraq and many a war profiteer around the administration made millions and billions. They never sought out the accused 9/11 CIA operative Osama Bin Laden. Add torture and illegal spying to obvious Bush Administration crimes. Also we have never had a proper investigation of the administration's complacency involving the 9/11 attacks. If you believe that as a district attorney that you have the power , right and a just method to seek the death penalty in first degree murder cases; it is your duty to bring murder, torture and conspiracy charges against the Bush administration defendants. There is so much publicly available evidence that Iraqi people and US soldiers died so people around Bush could profit from war. It is your duty and the duty of every district attorney in the US to bring war crimes charges against Bush and others in his administration. Would you ask the death penalty when you prosecute Bush and company? If not the US undeniably remains rouge state and therefore you cannot honestly seek the death penalty in and murder case.
- atliberty March 30, 2009 10:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This is very poor argument by Amnesty Intl., as is the case with all of their anti death penalty efforts.
AI's logic is this.
The death penalty and the US must be bad, because a bunch of bad countries use the death penalty.
What nonsense.
Simply because the US shares a public policy with"bad" countries doesn't make either the US or that policy "bad".
For example, some really bad countries do not have the death penalty. So, why doesn't AI say all of those countries and that public policy position is bad? Guess.
In their anti death penalty positions, AI shows a particular lack of reason.
- dudleysharp June 15, 2009 9:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Just because a minority commits more crime is not racial bias. They commited the act's for which they are jailed.
- bobo2854 July 31, 2008 9:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Perhaps it would be more fair to allow everyone on death row a second trial; clearly if so many convicted have later been found innocent, there is some fundamental flaw in the judicial system.
That opens an entirely new issue, what about all the people who aren't on death row, who may be innocent? Is it too big an issue, leaving us saying "oh well"?
- sonofwill August 1, 2008 9:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So how long do we paying for the high cost of upkeep for prisoners who will never stay out of the system, even when they are given a second chance. Do the people they kill get this second chance?
I'm sorry, if you kill someone out of anger or just because you didn't like something they did, then that person deserves to die and not of natural cause sitting in our prison systems for us to pay for their keep.
Wait until they kill one of the members of your family and then see how you feel.
The Death Penalty should be mandatory in all 50 states.
- lereeves April 29, 2009 1:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Mr. Marquis,
You say, "There is not a single case in the modern era of capital punishment (since 1976) where a person executed has turned out to be factually innocent." But what qualifies you to make this astounding assertion? Even if all people found guilty of capital crimes and actually executed made deathbed confessions, you couldn't make that claim. You can only claim that no one executed since 1976 has been legally exonerated after death, but even if that is true, it doesn't bear on the argument.
For despite our ideal of justice, our system for maintaining this ideal is flawed by definition and even the founding fathers knew that the system of justice they created knew that the goal is an approximate justice that approaches as closely to true, unattainable, perfect justice as possible.
My impression is that many trial attorneys tend to forget that whilst their goal is to make the most effective case they can, and the goal of the court is to provide a just result, the latter goal often simply cannot be achieved. But we maintain an official fiction that the results of the deliberations of our courts, from the most humble municipal traffic court of a small town to The Supreme Court of the United States of America, are true and just. This cannot always be guaranteed, of course, but we maintain the fiction nonetheless, for it's impossible, with current technology, to do better.
The trouble arises when we ignore this fact and define justice as the aggregate result of our judicial deliberations. By this definition, all executions are just, for the guilt of the executed is assured by this definition, no matter what the absolute truth.
When you claim that no innocent person has been executed since 1976, you are making this common error in logic. For you could only claim that no person not found innocent by the justice system has been executed since 1976, assuming that this is true, and not that no person actually innocent, but found guilty in error by the justice system, has been executed since 1976.
Our system of justice is not perfect; it makes errors. We must tolerate this, for nothing better is possible, but our government should not be killing people based upon the results of our justice system, for killing is irrevocable and such errors cannot be undone.
How can we, as a society, claim we value human life, on the one hand, and agree that we kill innocent people erroneously found guilty on the other?
- azz710 September 7, 2008 1:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
With the emotion and strong feelings and deeply held beliefs, particularly against capital punishment, it's opponents are quick to point to any mistake that has been made. There is no question that there have been some (about 30) people of the almost 9000 sentenced to death who were in fact innocent of that crime. They were released through the judicial process and one who may have been innocent died of natural causes while in prison.
But as to the claim that innocent people are being executed now, the closest abolitionists thought they had was Roger Coleman of Virginia, who was on the cover of TIME Magazine just before his execution in 1992 by the State of Virginia. He went to his death asserting his innocence, a claim echoed by many supporters, most notably Jim McCloskey from Centurion Ministries. In January 2006 departing Virginia Governor Mark Warner negotiated a deal whereby the last trace of DNA, in the hands of a defense expert who had been unwilling to give the evidence back to Virginia, was tested by a neutral DNA lab in Canda. The result; indisputable proof of Coleman's guilt. I strongly recommend the aricle "Burden of proof; Jim McCloskey desperately wanted to save Roger Coleman from the electric chair. Maybe a little too desperately" from the yhe Washington Post by Glenn Frankel published in May 2006.
Is it possible that someday it will be proved that an innocent person was in fact executed - yes.
- Josh Marquis February 15, 2009 10:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm glancing at the associated costs and it seems to me that the reason why the Death Penalty costs more is because of the degree of thoroughness. The process is all together more committed to finding the truth so the problem isn't the death penalty, it's that putting someone away for life without parole is easier. Which it shouldn't be as they are effectively the same sentence. The person's life has ended and they are permanently removed from society.
Another question would be why more people have been found innocent on Death Row than Lifers? Is it simply that they don't get the appeals and attention? How is that just?
- Sean Renaud July 17, 2008 11:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The death penalty only costs more because opponents have made sure that it does. How much is one bullet? The proper comparison is the cost of the actual penalty, not the cost of the trials, because justice should be the same either way - guilty is guilty. It's ridiculous to say that keeping a murderer imprisoned for 60 years costs less than simply executing him on day one.
- Freeman July 24, 2008 1:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I was interested in seeing factual evidence on the cost of non-death penalty cases being similar to capital cases, since I find the financial cost—average of $1M is the amount I once heard—to be one of the more convincing arguments against DP. It's disappointing that this evidence wasn't presented. In fact, this line of objection was cut abruptly short in favor of the 'slippery slope' argument about they're-coming-after-life-without-parole-next. WTF? I felt that this was a far weaker objection, and that the sudden switching of tacks got what could have been a strong point lost in the shuffle.
- wintersmith July 27, 2008 6:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I can only speak from direct experience from the State of Oregon where I both defended and more recently have prosecuted both capital and non capital aggravated murder cases. The process is the same; two separate trials. The amount of work done by defense experts is usually the same and defendants spend similar amounts of time appealing the verdicts and penalty (this is where the overwhelming part of the cost comes in).
But as I said above I would hope we would never make the decision to execute someone simply because it costs less or abandon justice because it costs too much money. Due process is expensive, and it should be.
- Josh Marquis February 15, 2009 10:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
No country that has abolished the death penalty (Canada, Mexico, Europe, many others) has eliminated life in jail as a consequence. This argument is not based in fact, but speculation.
- PrometheusUnborn August 2, 2008 4:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Mexico has abolished Life without parole and the Mexican Supreme Court has held that persons facing LWOP should NOT be extradited back to the United States.
Many honest death penalty foes will admit that if they are successful in abolishing the death penalty the next target is LWOP. This debate is already very active as it relates to murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes.
- Josh Marquis February 15, 2009 10:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The lobbying consequence of abolishing the death penalty should not affect the decision on whether the death penalty itself is a good idea. If life-without-parole cannot withstand scrutiny or indeed does not meet the needs of the public then we are doing a dis-service by keeping it in place simply because the lobbyists are too busy with the death penalty.
While I agree that justice shouldn't have a price tag the reality is that it does. I have no qualm with the death penalty per-se but given the realities of our judicial system I do not support it. It is unlikely to be used but a "death penalty agreement" clause would be desirable where the defendant could request death instead of life-without-parole.
- polobo August 30, 2008 7:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Anyone or any group can make stats appear pro or con on any subject anytime. AI says these are the stats, but when others have opposing stats they yell "FOUL". Double standard
- bobo2854 July 31, 2008 9:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The death penalty should be abolished for multiple reasons. Our system of determining guilt is imperfect; the risk of killing an innocent person is great. The main reason we should abolish the death penalty is to promote a civilized society. We should not put ourselves on the same level as criminals. Although it may cost us $$ to maintain life sentences, the society wins by rising above government sponsored violence.
- Blueschix August 7, 2008 6:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Since our system is imperfect....we should get rid of all our laws too....because....hey.....every judge gets it wrong.
I should be able to steal, rape, murder, pillage, and more because someone could get it wrong.
- reb412 August 30, 2008 10:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Prisoners who would ordinarily be sentenced to death should instead be forced to donate blood, plasma, kidneys, bone marrow, hair, etc. They should also be told the stories of the people whose lives they are helping by their donation. Perhaps this will help to teach them compassion and instill in them a sense of pride when helping others.
- ufcarazy April 30, 2009 3:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"how can we exclude capital punishment if we know with certainty that innocent people will be murdered without it?"
Innocent people will be murdered with or without it, that much is certain. It's not a panacea after all. Whether more or less will be killed is very debatable cause there are studies to support either argument. Indeed, if one looks at the number homicides by state, those without the death penalty
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7471/murderrategraphhr6.gif
I think it's hard to be sure what if any effect is had.
We punish murders by holding them criminally liable, should the state be punished when a innocent person is killed by the state?
- phogan July 25, 2008 12:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
To state that "there has never been any doubt that capital punishment is a specific deterrent" is quite misleading. There have been numerous studies showing that self-preservation is ineffective as a deterrent for crime.
The dual purpose of the penal system is to remove those who are a danger to society from society, and secondly, to rehabilitate them. Simply killing off those who are obviously mentally ill or criminally insane goes against what the penal system was setup to do. It was instigated not only to protect the stable elements in society, but also to aid and assist those that need help re-integrating into society.
There is a general ignorance and lack of understanding with regards to the criminal mind. J. R. R. Tolkein once wrote that there are many who are dead that deserve life, and some alive who deserve death. We cannot give life to those who deserve it, so why do we assume we can take life from those deserving death? We should not be playing God.
- Ralfe Poisson
July 25, 2008 2:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I assume for the sake of argument that the death penalty is effective to the rate of 18 murders prevented by each execution. This may sound a strong argument for the death penalty, were it not that the question framed in terms of preventive effect, apart from moral considerations, is still whether the money spent on the death penalty cannot be spent in an even more effective way to save lives. This question is not answered by any of the cited studies. Likely spending the money saved by abolition of the death penalty could be used e.g. to reduce DWI, with a number of death attributed to that far larger than murders. There is a real choice here and an innocent life saved by preventing a murder is equivalent to an equally innocent life saved by taking DWI drivers off the road.
- gerard te meerman
September 4, 2008 5:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
And that means innocent victims of capital punishment , too. There have been countless people put on death row and proved innocent before or after execution. Are they not innocent victims?
- Blue Linchpin June 14, 2009 11:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents
Dudley Sharp
Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty ?
Unlikely.
Enhanced Due Process - No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law . Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed. That is. logically, conclusive.
Enhanced Incapacitation - To state the blatantly clear, living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder , again, than are executed murderers. Although an obvious truism, it is surprising how often folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.
Enhanced Deterrence - 16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. A surprise? No. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don't. Studies which don't find for deterrence don't say no one is deterred, but that they couldn't measure those deterred.
What prospect of a negative outcome doesn't deter some? There isn't one.
Enhanced Fear - Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it's a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out. Reality paints a very different picture. What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
What of that more rational group, the potential murderers who choose not to murder, is it likely that they, like most of us, fear death more than life?
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
The False Promise - Part of the anti death penalty deception is that a life sentence, with no possibility of release, is a superior alternative to the death penalty. It's a lie. History tells us that lifers have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law , etc. There are few absolutes with sentencing. But, here are two: the legislature can lessen the sentences of current inmates, retroactively, and the executive branch can lessen any individual sentence, at any time. This has been, actively, pursued, for a number of years, in many states, because of the high cost of life sentences and/or geriatric care, found to be $60,000-$90,000 per year per inmate.
Innocents released from death row: Some reality - Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have all been released upon post conviction review. The anti death penalty claims, that the numbers are significantly higher, are a fraud, easily discoverable by fact checking. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.
copyright 2007-2009, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
essays http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Dudley %20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
http://www.dpinfo.com
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
http://www.coastda.com/archives.html
http://www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
- dudleysharp June 15, 2009 4:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You ask the question how many victims are necessary? I would ask how many people who are innocent are executed? ONE is too many! Especially when we have an alternative of life without parole that is cheaper and doesn't require a resurrection to reverse in the case of error. We will never know how many innocents are executed as after the execution they no longer may appeal. DNA evidence will no longer be collected. And as poor people OVERWHELMINGLY are the ones that are executed we are killing those who have the least amount of resourses to protect themselves. I would rather find myself in agreement with countries like Spain, Germany, England, and France than countries like North Korea, Chine, Syria, and Iran... yes?
- gavcoo July 28, 2009 2:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You said there weren't too many wrongly convicted people on death row. I see you are a recognized expert, so I ask you"How many wrongfully executed people are too many?" Life sir is a double edged sword it cuts both ways. I am far from an expert but I can tell you I do know the right answer to this question.
- oneoldman July 30, 2009 1:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Your point is a good one, but using Maine and Vermont as examples against a downtown metropolitan area is misleading. Of course Maine and Vermont will seem safer -- their populations are in general less dense than downtown Houston's. If crime rate and the existence of the death penalty are uncorrelated even when we are controlling for population density, we can't say with certainty that the death penalty is pushing crime rates down.
- thoughtcounts Z September 8, 2008 8:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree (see my comment above) that the choice of example locations was not ideal. However, I don't think that invalidates the point, and I think your response to Amnesty's objection actually underscores the argument you are trying to disagree with. Surely if some countries with low murder rates have the death penalty and some do not, or if some densely populated cities with high murder rates have the death penalty and some do not, that demonstrates that the existence of the death penalty is not the primary determiner of murder rate.
- thoughtcounts Z September 8, 2008 8:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
D.A.'s Marquis' argument in favor of capital punishment makes little if any sense.
Deterrence is one of the most fraulent principles in the history of mankind.
A murder is commited for one of 3 following reasons :
1.Profit(hitmen, drug dealers, or killing a spouse for life insurance)
2.Passion(killing a cheating spouse)
3.Compulsion (jeffery dahmer, son of sam, john couey, etc.)
People who kill for profit do it rationally and are convinced they will get away with it.
People who kill in passion cannot weigh risk/reward when they are flipped out.
Finally, and worst, crimes of compulsion are violent acts that you cannot deter because it's a compulsion.
Finally, the notion that a killer's ideas die with them as Marquis points out when he says the executions stop future murders is ridiculous.
You don't believe me? just look at the neo-nazis/fourth reich type stuff.
- zaneman1 June 27, 2009 12:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"No human endeavor is without risk and every year tens of thousands of people are killed by mistakes by pharmacists and doctors. Yet we don’t stop medicine or surgery, we seek to improve it and reduce the risk."
This is sadly true. But the comment made in this context, makes it really, really dumb. Presumably, someone sitting on Death Row is there because he wanted to kill someone, which is what makes it murder. The same can not be said about the mistakes of health care professionals.
You also note what a tiny percentage of Death Row inmates have been more or less exonerated by DNA evidence, but somehow failed to notice that it's four human beings that the state won't kill. Would ten innocent lives saved be enough to convince you? 100? 1,000? Perhaps you really need those percentages, so 1, 5, 10%? What percent of innocent human life lost would convince you that it's just not worth the risk?
- Old Rogue September 3, 2008 4:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I'm all for the death penalty. I don't think we use it enough.
That said I think we need to use all of the technology available to make sure we are executing the correct person. If there is DNA available it should be automatically tested. If someone else admits to the crime after the the fact. It needs to be seriously investigated. If witnesses recant after the trial we need to know why and their claims need to be taken seriously. If its discovered that the prosecutor or law enforcement withheld evidence there should be severe punishment. We're talking about a persons life.
I've frequently heard the statement "Twelve men and women found him/her guilty". Those twelve had to make the decision based on the facts at hand and when the "facts" change the decision may change.
Yes - we will inevitably execute someone who is innocent but we should do everything we can to eliminate that possibility.
- Aegiltheugly September 23, 2008 2:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You just made the good case for abolishment of the death penalty , look at what you wrote. How to make sure we are excuting the right person(s), hello the only way to be sure is to not murder them. There are some evil people in this world who do some some awful ugly things, however we are not God, we do not have the right to decide who lives or who dies in the name of justice.
That being said the death penalty is nothing more than legal murder powered by revenge, not justice. It does not deter anything, it is not cost effective, it cost millions in appeals process, and keeps the survivers of the victims wounds open and exposed. There is no such thing as closure for the families, even if the person who killed their loved dies, the pain of losing their loved one does not go away because someone stuck a needle in the killers arm.
I think keeping the inmates alive serves a dual purpose, first they could be innocent, and second prison is no kiddie park, life if one could call it life is having to remember what they did to be where they are at. No closure for them either, actually it is more punishing than death, because once they are gone they are gone, don't have to deal with their behavior any more. If you ask me death is too good for the killers who are guilty on death row.
Do you know or have you ever been in a prison, not the crap we watch on tv, a real prison? If you had you might think differently about how great the inmates don't have it. There are times when death would be better than life to some of the inmates. They have no future period, and that is good enough for me. If they seek redemption they will have to admit their crimes as well as participate in seeking forgiveness. Life means life is a sentence I can live with, no parole ever.
On the flip side of that coin is what about the people who have been excuted and were not guilty. I wonder if you had to administer the drugs to kill another person, then found out they were innocent of the crime they were put on death row for, how would you deal? Would you say "Yes we will inevitably execute someone who is innocent (but) we should do everyting we can to eliminate that possibility." Therefore that one person life was taken, now we find out he was innocent, but that's the breaks you win some you lose some. What if that person who was being executed was you, and all you can say is I'm innocent, and no body is listening because your the convicted killer who is about to die.
- lfschrawyer1 May 29, 2009 6:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The fact that there are over 200 innocent people nationwide exhonerated and a prison system that has only 3 million people in it, not tens of millions, is alarming. Is there always DNA evidence for the innocent? Do all innocent people get a decent appeal? According to many the TRUE number is closer to 10 percent of ALL people convicted are wrongfully convicted. Why are capital cases any different??? There is a real case to be made that if you are a minority your chance of receiving the death penalty for a crime increases DRAMATICALLY. until we are able to understand and repair these inequities, isn't the death penalty at least a BIT suspect? We should stop taking lives at least until there is evidence that it saves lives and there is TRULY equal justice for all.
- gavcoo July 28, 2009 3:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The 133 death row "innocents" scam
Dudley Sharp, contact info below
NOTE: fact checking issues, on innocence and the death penalty .
It is very important to take note that the 133 "exonerated" from death row is a blatant scam, easily uncovered by fact checking.
Richard Dieter, head of the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) and DPIC have produced the claims regarding the exonerated and innocents released from death row list.
The scam is that DPIC just decided to redefine what exonerated and innocence mean according to their own perverse definitions.
How Dieter and DPIC define what "exonerated" or "innocent" means.
". . . (DPIC) makes no distinction between legal and factual innocence. " 'They're innocent in the eyes of the law ,' Dieter says. 'That's the only objective standard we have.' "
That is untrue, of course. We are all aware of the differences between legal guilt and actual guilt and legal innocence (not guilty) and actual innocence, just as the courts are.
The only issue in the death penalty innocence debate is how many actual innocents are sent to death row and what is the probability of executing an actual innocent. Legal innocence is not the issue, for the simple fact that we cannot execute a legally innocent person. So the concern is over the actual innocent, those who had no connection to the murder (s).
Furthermore, there is no finding of actual innocence, but it is "not guilty". Dieter knows that we are all speaking of actual innocence, those cases that have no connection to the murder(s). He takes advantage of that by redefining exonerated and innocence.
Dieter "clarifies" the three ways that former death row inmates get onto their "exonerated" by "innocence" list.
"A defendant whose conviction is overturned by a judge must be further exonerated in one of three ways: he must be acquitted at a new trial, or the prosecutor must drop the charges against him, or a governor must grant an absolute pardon."
None establishes actual innocence.
DPIC has " . . . included supposedly innocent defendants who were still culpable as accomplices to the actual triggerman."
DPIC: "There may be guilty persons among the innocents, but that includes all of us."
Good grief. DPIC wishes to apply collective guilt of capital murder to all of us.
Dieter states: "I don't think anybody can know about a person's absolute innocence." (Green). Dieter said he could not pinpoint how many are "actually innocent" -- only the defendants themselves truly know that, he said." (Erickson)
Or Dieter won't assert actual innocence in 1, 133 or 350 cases. He doesn't want to clarify a real number with proof of actual innocence, that would blow his entire deception.
Or, Dieter declare all innocent: "If you are not proven guilty in a court of law , you're innocent." (Green)
Dieter would call Hitler and Stalin innocent. Those are his "standards".
And that is the credibility of the DPIC.
For fact checking.
1. "Case Histories: A Review of 24 Individuals Released from Death Row", Florida Commission on Capital Cases, 6/20/02, Revised 9/10/02 at http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/Publications/innocentsproject.pdf
83% error rate in "innocent" claims.
2. "Is 'the innocence list' an appropriate name?", 1/19/03
FRANK GREEN, TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
http://www.stopcapitalpunishment.org/coverage/106.html
Dieter admits they don't discern between legal innocence and actual innocence. One of Dieter's funnier quotes;"The prosecutor, perhaps, or Dudley Sharp, perhaps, thinks they're still guilty because there was evidence of their guilt, but that's a subjective judgment." Yep, "EVIDENCE OF GUILT", can't you see why Dieter would think they were innocent? And that's how the DPIC works.
3. The Death of Innocents: A Reasonable Doubt,
New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
national legal correspondent for The NY Times
"To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . ".
That is out of the DPIC claimed 119 "exonerated", at that time, for a 75% error rate.
NOTE: It's hard to understand how an absolute can have a differential of 33%. I suggest the "to be sure" is, now, closer to 25.
4. CRITIQUE OF DPIC LIST ("INNOCENCE:FREED FROM DEATH ROW"), Ward Campbell, http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm
5. "The Death Penalty Debate in Illinois", JJKinsella,6/2000, http://www.dcba.org/brief/junissue/2000/art010600.htm
6.THE DEATH PENALTY - ALL INNOCENCE ISSUES, Dudley Sharp
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/all-innocence-issues--the-death-penalty.aspx
Origins of "innocence" fraud, and review of many innocence issues
7. "Bad List", Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review, 9/16/02
www.nationalreview.com/advance/advance091602.asp #title5
How bad is DPIC?
8. "Not so Innocent", By Ramesh Ponnuru,National Review, 10/1/02
www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru100102.asp
DPIC from bad to worse.
- dudleysharp June 15, 2009 4:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Your last sentence requires that the system change since what you propose restricts (generally) due process and thus is unconstitutional. This may be a desired change but it is one that actually weakens your death penalty argument since these restrictions make it more likely that the guilty are proven as such and the innocent are not. If you concede that death is irreversible then any change that increases likelihood of "false proof" is incompatible as an argument supporting the death penalty.
Assuming that using an imperfect system for deterrence at the risk of harm to innocent persons is unacceptable; regardless of its deterrence effects the system must stand on its own first. Given the maximum harm possible by the system (death) what is the maximum level of risk/accuracy we are willing to accept (false positive percentage). If our courts can be shown to meet that level of accuracy then the system should be deemed acceptable otherwise it should be canned. What level of accuracy would you impose on a system for which an inaccurate result ends in death? How accurate is our current system? What is the cost associated with this and other levels of accuracy?
- polobo August 30, 2008 8:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I don't suppose it cuts any ice with you that the rest of the world sees this as pre-historic? I also don't suppose it matters that those countries that don't have the death penalty don't have as many murders as the USA? Your logic is flawed and outdated. The death penalty is a sign of a society that is backward. You're in bed with China and all the other backward countries in the world. Shame. Why don't we start burning witches again too?
- ukmarcus September 3, 2008 5:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The mind of a person who commits a murder can only be in a limited number of states at the time of the crime . 1. They do not believe they will be caught. 2. They are in such a rage that they don't care if they are caught. 3. They are unaware of the seriousness of the crime or they don't believe what they are doing is wrong. (Usually insanity or mental retardation is a factor) 4.In rare cases, they want to be caught.
In any of those cases the death penalty has no detterent effect, whatsoever.
- Dank March 25, 2009 11:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I have had reason to go to prisons in connection with my former work. I can tell you that the death penalty is more welcome for a perpetrator than life without parole. Life places him in the population where his life is worth nothing. The death penalty is not and has never been a deterrent for the criminal. If he thinks about it at all he does not feel he will be caught.
- oneoldman July 30, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Among the innumerable,screwed up, neo-con principles that seperates Americans and divides this nation, the death penalty is a core tenet........an eye for an eye, assuage your grief (fear,loathing,anger, superiority, etc.) by punishing the offender and if a few mistakes are made, too bad.
In most civilized societies, the idea of killing the killer is contradictory, ignorant and clearly ineffective. If the crime is pre-meditated, the last thing going through the criminals mind is being caught and facing a death penalty. If the crime is one of spontaneous rage, the fear of apprehension or subsequent death is totally absent, at least until the offender returns to a calmer state. If the crime is a toxic blend of addiction and insane pleasure(serial killers) getting caught and being executed are, more or less minor irritations, if not welcome relief. If the crime is a "professional hit" or something similar then there is little fear of the consequences and a surity of being able to evade them easily. If the crime is accidental, there is no death penalty, unless it occurs in the committing of another crime ( robbery , rape , etc.) and so on.
Those who quote spurious and highly politically spun "statistics, research and proofs" that the death penalty is an effective deterrent are in the same class as those who claim their particular religious dogmas, books, beliefs, words of Divine guidance, ad nausea are deluded and morally simplistic.
Every religious text has, among other Values, the basic tenet that the sanctity of life is unbreachable and that no one has God's authorization to take life, period. Despite this, the fanatical religious right, along with the fanatical terrorist minorities and the dissolute, corrupt dictators worldwide perversly adhere to their "right"to kill whomever they determine to be enemies of God, the State, criminals or even their personal adversaries.
I am a proud citizen of a nation who has ended capital punishment decades past and it is one of the safest, least violent countries in the world. We also strictly control access to weapons by the general public AND employ an effective, carefully monitored supervision and training for those given the priviledge to own a weapon. Our violent crime rate has declined over the past 40 years by about .8% per year while about 5% of those imprisoned for a capital crime have subsequently been released as innocent of their original "crime". It is singularly hypocritical to maintain that the most just and rightful punishment for murder is to murder the offender, but the gut satisfying appeal of watching the person who murdered being subjected to the same treatment as their victim(s) is a particularly difficult addiction to break.
- weedonald
November 11, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I used to be for the death penalty for the bundy, dahmer and other heinous serial killers but after experience in the legal system I am not even sure those guys were realy guilty. Also they have used it on people that were involved in individual crimes of passion and bar fights where there are elements of self defense and other mitigating factors. Then too Timothy McVey publicly asked for the death penalty and it took them a long time to give him a leathal injection. If I had life in prison or death I would chose death. So like, if they found GW guilty of starting the Iraq war so his military industrial complex buddies could make the outlandish profits they did, I would want him to live in prison a long long time.
- atliberty March 29, 2009 4:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Just waking up every day knowing that you would never again freedom would be worse the death penalty .
- oneoldman July 30, 2009 12:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
8
3
8
5
10
7
3
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should the U.S. Abolish the Death Penalty?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There are cases where the death penalty fits
Cruel and unusual you hear all the time when the argument of abolishing the death penalty arises. I have vigorously in the past argued that some cases still exist where the only course of action means to use the death penalty. I can certainly see where the pro abolishment group is coming from: Aren't we a civilized culture that detests the inhumane and unnecessary acts? Absolutely correct. But, lest us forget Timothy McVeigh? What about the terrorists that bomb US embassies throughout the world? And how about Osama Bin Laden? There are more examples of miscreants who deserve the death penalty. I also strongly support death penalties in cases of premeditated murder 1. I'm not from Texas and I have a college degree, so spare me that rhetoric. There are people in this world that have shown they do not belong among civilized man. And they are not all clinically insane, in fact some of them plan out every last touch before they execute the deed. Let's not abolish the death penalty...yet.
- Sundevil
July 13, 2008 9:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bait and switch
"There are people in this world that have shown they do not belong among civilized man. And they are not all clinically insane, in fact some of them plan out every last touch before they execute the deed. Let's not abolish the death penalty...yet."
So the best response is to allow the state to plan every last detail and murder? I don't have any rhetoric for you but I do wonder about the logic of "we think killing is wrong so if you do it we are going to kill you".
- mangueken
February 28, 2009 7:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Retain rhe Death Penalty
The threat of the death penalty has been
shown to be a deterent to murder.
- wytside July 16, 2008 8:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
RE: Retain rhe Death Penalty
Do you have any evidence to back this up this claim? An assertion is not a proof, nor is it even a compelling argument.
- cwilton
September 28, 2008 1:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Evidence that death is a deterent to crime:
In Africa, HIV / AIDS is a huge problem. Rape is another huge problem. It is a fact that the vast majority of rape in Africa is against young girls/infants. This is because at these viginal young ages, wthe victims are far less likely to have contracted HIV/AIDS through the most common manner: sexual intercourse.
Rapists target the safer victim because of the threat of death.
Furthermore, I point you to the following George Washington International Law Review Publication:
http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific-technical-services/legal-services/4098211-1.html
- SolarSanitizer
June 19, 2009 5:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
viginal?
The deterent to playing intellect should be using non words!
- CitizenZebra
November 9, 2009 8:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The deterent to ...
playing intellectual is using non words, :viginal?
- CitizenZebra
November 9, 2009 8:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
stopping
That isn't really stopping them from committing the crime , it is just causing them to change their target.
- MrBook
November 10, 2009 6:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Studies
Could you please produce the studies which have "shown" this deterrance effect in which criminals think about consequences.
- DominicSavio
November 2, 2008 12:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Deterrent
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
There is no definitive answer, but consider this: is there anything to show, definitively, that the number of innocent lives saved by a deterrent effect is less than the number taken wrongly by the death penalty?
- Zed
December 29, 2008 10:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes...
confessions!
- CitizenZebra
November 9, 2009 8:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Death penalty not effective
Since the death penalty is not a deterrent one can only come to the conclusion that the death penalty serves only one purpose, that of hateful revenge. We should be clear that this isn't about deterrence to future rapists and murderers but about satisfying the vengeful feelings of some people. In the same way that locks keep out honest people the death penalty provides a deterrent to those who wouldn't dream of murder in the first place.
We can think about the victims of crimes and conveniently forget about confessions made under duress and lousy "justice" processes. We are not really so very different from a place like Saudi Arabia, where they have public beheadings every week. Perhaps that is what Americans would really like to see.
- Kelly
July 22, 2008 11:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't agree with any of what you say But...
I am against the death penalty. Why? Because our system is imperfect and as long as there is any chance of an innocent person being executed I will be against it. By the way your reasons are totally flawed and are right out of the Liberal talking points. If your going to argue something don't use your own sense of morality be your central theme. I could easily argue against that. For example what you call revenge I could say is justice for a grieving family and executing the murderer of a loved one could easily help them cope with their loss. Which is the greater good? Saving an evil horrible murderer from execution or easing the pain of that innocent family?
- tbcass
December 5, 2008 8:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What's wrong with you?
You Said
"We can think about the victims of crimes and conveniently forget about confessions made under duress and lousy "justice" processes. We are not really so very different from a place like Saudi Arabia, where they have public beheadings every week. Perhaps that is what Americans would really like to see."
Do you really hate this country that much? You're totally ignorant of Saudi Arabia's legal system and sense of justice. You are also ignorant of what most people want in this country.
- tbcass
December 5, 2008 8:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What's wrong with your logic?
"Do you really hate this country that much? You're totally ignorant of Saudi Arabia's legal system and sense of justice. You are also ignorant of what most people want in this country."
Classic. Because I want to make this country better by holding it up to higher standards I am the one who hates this country?
And no, I am completely aware of the barbarity of the Saudi Arabian "justice" system. That is precisely why I want to make sure we do not end up there ourselves, which many people would gladly welcome it seems.
- Kelly
December 5, 2008 9:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My Logic is fine
You said "We are not really so very different from a place like Saudi Arabia". Now you say you don't want our country to become like Saudi Arabia. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Don't worry. Nobody wants the US to become like Saudi Arabia so it will never happen. Remember the Conservatives think that people like you want our country to become Communists. That isn't going to happen either. One thing about logical clear thinking centrists like myself is we can see what idiots both you Lefties and the Right Wingers are.
- tbcass
December 6, 2008 12:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Its either OK to kill people, or it isn't.
We don't allow citizens to kill other citizens, so why should we allow the government to kill citizens? 1) Punishment that fits the crime? A criminal will suffer far more from life in prison than from an early death. 2) Removing monsters from society? That's what prisons are for. 3) Closure for the families of the victims? Killing is either wrong, or it isn't. Every parent teaches their children that two wrongs don't make a right. 4) Using taxpayer dollars to sustain the life of a monster? I can understand that some might see this as, in some sense, providing aid and comfort to the "enemy". But the same is true of prisoners of war (who we do not put to death) and in fact all criminals. The bottom line is that is not necessary to kill anyone who no longer poses a threat to anyone but themselves, and since it is not necessary, it cannot be justified.
- Charles Ames
July 23, 2008 11:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Killing =/= Murder
Mr. Ames,
Killing does not equate to murder, and only murder is punishable by death. It is not a crime to kill in self defense, and society, in establishing such penalties, is in fact killing in its own defense. True, there is no infallible proof to the deterrent nature of capital punishment, but there is nothing to suggest definitively that more innocents would be lost to a death penalty than to a lack thereof.
- Zed
December 29, 2008 10:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Execution =/= Self Defense
Your assertion that "society... is killing in self defense" does not hold up. Conceptually, a criminal on death row poses no risk to society, and the risk they might pose to any individual other than themselves is vanishingly small. Furthermore, killing to eliminate a *potential* threat is not self defense, it is murder. Legally, the justified use of deadly force requires an imminent mortal threat. When a criminal is strapped to a table waiting for the needle to be inserted, they are absolutely no threat to anyone; no imminent threat exists, so it cannot be considered self defense.
- Charles Ames
December 29, 2008 11:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Execution =?= Self Defense
It could be argued that there is an imminent threat to those who would be harmed if an example is not set:
At the moment at which the execution is scheduled, the legal system may proceed as planned, asserting a philosophy which many studies have shown to be effective in deterring crime, or it may back out, greatly weakening its apparent firmness in regard to the matter. At this moment, society has the option to kill in self defense.
But this is not my main point. The point is, given the number of studies that have shown a deterrent effect, can you really say for sure that society would lose any more innocent life with the death penalty than without it? It's not unconstitutional punishment: in many ways, life imprisonment is often crueler (and the deaths more painful), and the death penalty is as unusual as society makes it. It ultimately comes down to how many people are convinced, as you are, that it sets a bad example and brutalizes, and how many people are convinced that it sets the right example and deters.
Neither of these groups have proof of their cause: it's all theory, but, currently, I find myself with the majority in the United States and in those states which hold executions. By Democratic principles, this is fair.
- Zed
December 29, 2008 1:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good point, different question
You make a good point that since it is not prohibited by the constitution and a majority of US citizens favor capital punishment, our representatives in the government should not abolish capital punishment. In this you are exactly correct. That capital punishment is currently legal is not the issue. Rather the question is: should it be?
In other words, the debate is about the foundations of the opinions that lead us to cast our votes one way or the other.
My opinion is not that more Governors should commute more death sentences, nor that executioners should balk at carrying out their legally mandated duty, but rather that we should change the law so that the death penalty is no longer available as an option. My rationale is laid out above.
You refer to a "number of studies that have shown a deterrent effect"; will you point me to one that you found particularly persuasive?
- Charles Ames
December 29, 2008 5:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Even If Unproven, Deterrent Cannot Be Ignored
Some are listed here:
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
That site also references some opposing studies. My point, again, is that, hypothetically, the deterrent effect would save innocent lives. So, too, I admit, would not having the death penalty. You can't prove with the current studies out there that either of these amounts is greater than the other.
It all comes down to which you believe is greater. How great is the number of murders deterred, less the number of murders caused by the brutalizing effect, less the number of wrongful executions? Is it greater than or less than zero? The answer would involve both philosophy and psychology, and it depends a lot on the culture of the society.
I believe that the presence of a capital punishment, in playing on a natural fear of death, should frighten potential criminals enough to deter some crimes, and more would be saved than in the alternative situation. Obviously, I don't have any proof of that. That is my belief, and you may argue otherwise.
Also, to go back to your original point, governments are often allowed to do what the people cannot. You can't take away another person's property, and you can't take away another person's liberty. The government, in fining and jailing, can. Just as you are entitled conditionally to life, liberty, and property in this country, the government can remove those from you with proper justification, including the first.
- Zed
December 29, 2008 7:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Belief?
"I believe that the presence of a capital punishment, in playing on a natural fear of death, should frighten potential criminals enough to deter some crimes, and more would be saved than in the alternative situation. Obviously, I don't have any proof of that. That is my belief, and you may argue otherwise.
Zed December 29, 2008 7:28PM"
Not a very strong argument. Actually not even an argument and certainly not a discussion. Basically, what this type of opinion means is that no matter what logic or data comes along the person will refuse to accept it because personal belief is more important than reality.
This type of person just accepts what ever local tradition has passed on and never questions the validity of it. In this case Zed is American and since the various forms of the death penalty are accepted here in some states he also accepts it. If this person lived in another land with another culture he would also blindly accept their practices. Oh, the injustice of state and national borders determining how an individual believes!
The danger of this "belief over everything else" is that the world is full of mutually exclusive beliefs. How do we judge right and wrong between beliefs?
- mangueken
February 28, 2009 8:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I couldn't agree more
I am in complete agreement with your view on this question. Nice post.
- mangueken
February 28, 2009 7:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I should have added
That I am in complete agreement with Chris Ames views.
- mangueken
February 28, 2009 7:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No But .....
The standard of evidence needs to be made higher for the death penalty. There have been so many reversals of convictions in the past 10-20 years from DNA that it leaves significant doubt
There can be no doubt for this punishment. If the state decides to go after the death penalty a higher standard should apply.
- gridlock July 24, 2008 7:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
there will always be doubt
unfortunately we can never remove doubt completely which is why we should abolish the death penalty. A true life sentence will keep us equally safe and we don't risk killing an innocent person.
- reckoner
August 29, 2008 12:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There will always be the possibility of mistake
The standard is already very high, and still mistakes are made. When we will admit that our system is not infallible and therefore we cannot seek a punishment that is irreversible?
- Amnesty
August 29, 2008 4:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Irreversibility?
Almost every conceivable punishment is "irreversible." Locking someone up in jail for decades is irreversible to the extent that even if we let them out later, we can't give them back those years of their life. Even a fine that is later refunded deprived someone of that money for a period of time, and would them to do things differently than they otherwise would have if the fine had any meaningful effect on their savings. I can see how the death penalty seems like a different thing, but I'm not sure that reversibility is the quality about it which is different. (If it is, then you're saying that we have to pick a fairly arbitrary amount of reversibility below which it is not okay to go.)
- thoughtcounts Z
September 8, 2008 11:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No but.....
Where someone goes psycho and kills co workers but several are left alive as eyewitness's as has happened there is no doubt or possibility of mistake. In a botched robbery where the robber kills a hostage there are multiple eyewitness's leaves no doubt or possibility of mistake.
To say there is no example where there is absolute evidence is to say that you are against it under any circumstance which I have no problem with, however it is a disingenuous position.
- gridlock August 29, 2008 8:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
RE: No but....
Should the death penalty only be available then when a murder takes place in full view of multiple witnesses who are well acquainted with the perpetrator? If that is your position then it is difficult to understand how you could support the death penalty as it is now, because the current standard is much much lower.
Also, the kind of scenario you describe typically happens in the case of someone who is experiencing a psychotic episode and would likely be exempt from the death penalty anyway. So the kind of restriction you are suggesting would de facto virtually eliminate capital punishment.
Finally, even if you could identify those who are certainly guilty, you are still killing people, ostensibly to demonstrate the immorality of killing. It's not as if the death penalty were an act of self defense. Why kill when you don't have to?
- cwilton
September 29, 2008 6:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The same Debate, over and over
A very tiresome debate from a european's point of view, as we made our point decades ago: a country that wants to join eu MUST abandon death penalty. And guess what: our crime-rates are lower than in the us. So much to the detoriating effect of capital punishment.
Of course you will find studies about the detoriating effect of capital punishment, as you will find lots more about the absence of this effect. I recommend the unbiased article in sceprical inquirer: http://www.csicop.org/si/2004 -07/capital-punishment.html
Anyway, I feel that all this discussion about detoriation and the pros and cons of CP is only rationalization. All this "proven" facts and studies, that the pro-CP party so eagerly throws on the table have only one intention: to euphemize the true reason people so eagerly want CP: revenge. Its simply the deep-primitive lust for the satisfaction we hope to get by revenge and vengeance: eye for an eye, tooth for an tooth.
I'm so glad I don't have to live in such a society
- heino July 24, 2008 8:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Progress or Regress
It's plain, the vengeful execution of a human being - regardless of the actions of that human being - is not an improvement to human culture. For the same reasons we oppose the act of homicide, we must oppose execution. We cannot declare life - and human life especially - precious and then by any consistent rational logic support execution. Life is precious, or it is not. What most people mean is that "some" life is precious, some other is not. Although savage, execution under those conditions is at least consistent with one's values. Of course, under those conditions, no one is safe from the often arbitrary nature of the values of others. Under those conditions, homicide is legal if we hold to the legality of execution. Some are worthy of murder, others are not.
We must abandon vengeful executions because we claim to value a more compassion human culture. That would be progress in our valued direction. We can remain still in our values and stagnate, or we can regress to more incred
- Naumadd
July 24, 2008 8:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Neither / Who's We / Toward What
Let me put forth an alternate view of reality in which our choice of death or life imprisonment is morally neutral, one which does not necessitate your assumption of a "we" that values "a more compassionate human culture". Without this assumption we need not consider how to measure compassion which itself is difficult (do we show less compassion for victims by letting criminals live?).
We as a society have "agreed" that we are better off not allowing one member of that society to kill another. We have also "agreed" that the penalty for breaking that agreement carries certain penalties that will be carried out by the society as a whole. We have also given our society the power to enforce our desire to live by establishing an army to punish any entity, not belonging to our society, that attempts to kill us. It is not because we claim "life is precious" that this works but because of this agreement amongst the members of our society. Those penalties are only limited by what the members of the society, and other connected groups find to be, acceptable penalties. The society responds to the internal and external incentives in deciding what penalties to impose and not necessarily to some "higher authority" that may or may not exist (if it existed and supplied incentives then it is already accounted for, without incentives there is no feedback to guide us).
- polobo
August 30, 2008 9:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One wrong is enough
yes it should be abolished for the simple fact that if we wrongfully executed just one person. We can do it again. Life in prison can at least give the innocent a chance.
I personally think a life sentence without the possibility for parole is a much harsher penalty then death. I mean if I was facing the two I'd rather die then to sit in prison for the rest of me natural life.
- rchot July 25, 2008 12:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My sister
My sister was killed with three of her friends. It was her first year in collage. They were 18 and 19 yrs old This man was in his 30's. He had 21 convictions....more than they had birthdays... He was convicted of DWI's domestic violence of his wife and children and traffic violations. As soon as they set him free he got drunk. His BAC level was 27 more than triple the legal limit. Of course he survived. I think he should've died. He has life with no parole. His kids and wife get to visit him on weekends. I can never see my sister. HE SHOULD HAVE DIED. Where's the death penalty when you need it. All men and women (like susan smith) who commit crimes against kids should be killed. The movie citizen x had the right idea. No courts or jury, just a room a drain and a cop with a gun. Our kids are our future. Keep the death penalty. People who say no are the ones who never lost anyone they care about to a crime or death at the hands of another...
- momof2alienboys
July 27, 2008 8:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My sympathies
Your story is a very sad one, and I'm sorry to hear it. I hope that you can also see, though, why comments such as yours are the reason that people are wary of deferring to victims and victims' families when deciding what sort of punishment is just. Do you really think our legal system would be best as "a room with a drain and a cop with a gun"? I have a hard time believing that you would throw away your own rights against cruel and unusual punishment, your rights to a fair trial and due process, your rights in a case against you to have all the evidence carefully considered rather than jumping to conclusions based on impulses and anger. Remember, not every case has an obvious bad guy, and in many cases the seemingly obvious bad guy didn't do it. It's natural to be angry when you or someone you care deeply about is harmed, and I'm not suggesting that your feelings aren't justified. However, in order to have a functioning and fair legal system, we can't just sanction the killing of anyone who someone else is angry at. There needs to be a thorough and rigorous process in place.
- thoughtcounts Z
September 8, 2008 11:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
need more
execution elimates repeat crimes, and we need to start "putting down" lot off the people that act like animals.
- ronbat July 28, 2008 10:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why not eye for an eye?
To the man from Europe that said "Crime rates are lower there than in the U.S. that supports corporal punishment.":
The reason why this statistic is true, is because we don't really use corporal punishment except in a few states. It isn't used enough in my opinion. If someone shoots another person, with or without "meaning" to kill them and that person dies, they should share the same fate. It is not about revenge, it is about justice. "An eye for an eye" should be the way things are. If people start to worry "If I kill this person I will die also" instead of "If I kill this person I'll probably just serve 15 years" there will be a much lower crime rate and 0 repeat offenders. Should Adolf Hitler have been sent to jail for life with no parole? If you say yes to this you are lying, so why should it be different for other killers regardless of how many they killed?
- thinkforyourself July 30, 2008 2:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
death penalty: the ultimite hypocrite
you killed someone. killing is wrong. so we're going to kill you. lol? premeditated murder gives you a higher chance of getting the death penalty. nothing is more premeditated than the way the government kills them.
maybe the majority of the people on death row are guilty, but it has been proven that innocent people have been put to death. just one mistake is too much in my mind.
i also find it funny that people think this actually works. go look up the states that use the death penalty and compair their homicide rates to the states that don't. states with the death penalty mostly have the highest homicide rates.
you can see that it doesn't prevent murders, it is purely for revenge (not like a vengeful revenge, a calming revenge). people feel good thinking the person who killed someone is dead. pure evil? haha maybe not pure evil, but i see them as being just as bad as anyone that's been put to death.
keep in mind, most of that is my opnion, not actual facts.
- YellowKeyboard August 3, 2008 4:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
BIGOTS EQUAL ERRORS
You cannot allow a bigot the power of life and death they would kill a lot of my friends! There are many types of bigots in power they feel we should all be like they are and if you are not they will teach you how to conform! I just read a story today about a man he was asleep in his home with his daughter. Cops broke down his front door and his bedroom door acting with a bogus no knock warrant. Based on information from someone already in jail trying to reduce there time by giving false information. The man terrified shot a cop and killed him now he is jail for life, the bigots wanted to kill (execute) him. We have lost another right the right of defend ourselves when we feel in danger for our life! This is a fundamental right and it is being taken away, another casualty of the War on Drugs. Our so called leaders have given cops new orders, “To punish and Enslave” they do there job. I do not trust our legal system therefore I would not give it the power to kill (execute).
- Cherokee Fred hussein August 5, 2008 1:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Headline
Keeping an inmate for life is much less expensive that executing him. Though even the executions cost a lot of money, I think they should stop worrying how cruel the execution is, I think they should go back to using a very cheap form of execution ex. Guillotine
- Loldongs August 5, 2008 10:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We should abolish executions in the US.
I'll just borrow a few lines from above, I'm in a hurry: How many innocent people die before it's too many? Killing is wrong. Period. The government should not have that power - in fact the government should not have half the power it now has. Execution doesn't bring back murder victims.
- PSYOP
August 5, 2008 9:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Other countries do without the death penalty
Other countries have abolished the death penalty and are generally more peaceful than the United States.
- Michael Glass
August 8, 2008 7:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Murder is murder
If you believe murder is the worst thing that you can do, how can you sanction murder by proxy ?
The deterrent argument is a complete fallacy. There are more murders, per capita, in the US than in Europe where there is no death penalty.
One mistake is too many. You can free a wrongly imprisoned man.
- Andrew Holt
August 30, 2008 6:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Absolute Truth
Many liberals say there is no such thing like absolute truth. They think they are sophisticated because they say you can not judge all people without judging someone’s background. But some make absolute statements that the death penalty is always barbaric. Well yes, it is barbaric, except when it is not.
I believe there are times when it is more barbaric to let someone who has raped and killed children read books, write letters, exercise, have four meals a day, when their victims don’t get a chance to learn of their children’s weddings.
Do we really have the means to keep someone alive in prison? What happens when we run out of oil, and there are droughts, civil wars, etc. Do we let all the murderers go free to rape and pillage? What about 3rd world countries that can’t even feed those who are willing to work? Should they be obligated to keep those alive who want to rape, murder and pillage?
There shouldn’t be a one size fits all approach where we impose our morals on the planet, and people who act like they know that it is more moral to keep a someone alive who’s DNA has been recovered from inside a child who has been raped, tortured, and killed… People who go around patting themselves on the back for how merciful they are by keeping these people alive… what can you say to these kinds of people?
- myclob
August 30, 2008 7:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
RE: Absolute Truth
When society has collapsed and we are no longer able to detain criminals, get back to us. In the meantime, while do have the capacity to separate the most violent criminals from the rest of society, I welcome you as an opponent of the death penalty.
- cwilton
October 1, 2008 7:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I did not explain myself very well...
I think my logic applies now, not just if society falls apart... I used the society falling apart thing to show that we have to make choices, but really the choices are the same...
We can say that we live in a very civilized society, and that we can keep someone whom we know is guilty of rape and murder. We can say that we are so civilized, that we will pay $20,000 a year to keep someone alive who raped and murdered a child. We can say we are that advanced, that we have enough money to do this sort of thing... but every choice we make, is really a very significant choice, as if we are living in a society that has collapsed, because even though our society has not collapsed, others have... every $20,000 we use to keep a convicted rapest /murderer, is $20,000 that could have saved hundreds of lives in Africa, or India...
“Just as science can be used to free the innocent, it can be used to identify the guilty.”
- myclob
October 1, 2008 4:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You explained yourself beautifully...
I appreciate your comments and agree with you totally. It is madness to defend the "rights" of a child rapist - what rights? The same rights afforded the child? These long winded posts about the "value" of the life of the rapists have no concept of reality. Thank you again for your thoughts - well done.
- just a thought
September 11, 2009 9:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
a severe misunderstanding of justice...
I fear people do not understand the true purpose of the police and prison system. They are not here to rehabilitate and "correct" criminals, they serve to protect innocent citizens from criminals while at the same time punishing criminals. Once a person disregards another's right to life, he has lost his own right to life, and death is the least that he deserves. I firmly believe in justice and a man who kills deserves to die.
Some people think that in order to be considered justice, it must be nice and make people happy. Justice is not kind, it is just and true and above all objective.
The only problem is that a jury is not infallible. As the saying goes, "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish on innocent man." This is also undeniably true.
So, in terms of practical usage of the death penalty, it should be strictly monitored to be used only in the most obvious of cases.
- mkovach
September 8, 2008 11:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The U.S. should abolish the death penalty.
The death penalty is not fair in our court system when you are more likely to be found innocent of a crime by the amount of money you can pay for a lawyer. Rich criminals are rarely sentenced to death. Poor criminals only get public defenders who are usually beginning lawyers with little experience. Those defendants are much more likely to be found guilty and receive harsher penalties. The system is too flawed to sustain the death penalty. Then there is the argument that it is inhumane and uncivilized. You shouldn't be put to death just because you are poor.
- teapotrose
September 23, 2008 7:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Other than that, I have no problem with it.
The death penalty is immoral, barbaric, futile, and unnecessary.
Other than that, I have no problem with it.
- sean s
September 24, 2008 9:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no
You kill someone - you forfeit your right to life. The easiest way would be to kill them. Or you could take away freedom of liberty - and imprison them. This proves to be more of burden on society than you think- with the expenses and the possibility of parole. Evil people exist - and when good people do nothing or give into evil people, evil prevails. This is based on Evil being those that take away individual rights (life, liberty, property) and good being those that 'let us alone".
- selfish November 21, 2008 7:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
flag ?
Why is your flag picture upside down?
- just a thought
September 11, 2009 9:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
death becomes us!
people are so scared of death and it is the only thing that keeps us alive, that fear and especially from a legal sense no one wants to be sentenced to death, that is the worst thing that goes thru most peoples minds. so i have to be for the death penalty even though it cost money and takes to much time there is always politics that get in the way. to keep people in line in a sense is how i think it works.
- lamex
January 13, 2009 12:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes.
I don't kill. I believe that everyone has good in them, and that the killers and death row inmates were either distrubed or never was raised well
Anyway, isn't life sentence bad enough?
- The Other Conservative Guy
January 22, 2009 10:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
what?
No, in many cases the life sentence is not bad enough.
- just a thought
September 11, 2009 9:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Death Penalty protects residents from murder
What might a rapist/murderer think in a State without a Death Penalty when facing his/her victims?
Well, it's a little bit like the Lottery; isn't it?
If the rapist rapes the victims, that's 20 years for rape; but if the rapist then murders the victims, in a non-Death Penalty State, then that's still only 20 years (a life sentence, or two life sentences running concurrently) for the rapes and murders; but, if the murderer takes a chance (like a murder lottery or something) and murders the rape victims (the witnesses) and nobody finds out, because the murderer buries the bodies of the now rape-and- murder victims, then the muderer gets away with BOTH the rapes and the murders. What does the murderer ever have to worry about, then? That's like a free pass, if the murderer murders the then both rape-and-murder victims (because then nobody can testify against the rape/murderer).
Only the possibility of death can change the equation. If the murderer gets caught in a Death Penalty area, then he/she might eventually lose his/her life if the murderer murders his/her rape victims. Does that make a difference?
Have you heard convicted murderers in Death Penalty areas begin to talk about the "value of human life" and "society's need not to cheapen life with a Death Penalty"?
I have.
What do you think about this?
- raymond
March 20, 2009 11:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Since when did Christians advocate death?
As a Christ-follower, I am sometimes perplexed by the inconsistent and contradictory opinions of my brothers and sisters. For starters, I do not see anywhere in Christ's teachings that capital punishment is an accepted means of dealing with a criminal. If anything, he averted it when he could and chose extending grace and mercy when possible as in the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8). Yet, somehow, the death penalty has become a staple of the US justice system that most Christians fervently support.
Even more unnerving is when these same people claim to be " pro-life " because of their stance against abortion and the execution of an unborn baby . Doesn't "pro-life" for and in favor of life in general? A true "pro-life" individual is one who is against the death penalty as passionately as he is against abortion. Not only is it sound Biblical teaching , but it is a consistent belief system and rhetoric.
- Rethynk
March 21, 2009 9:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Question?
I am wondering if you have children ?
- just a thought
September 11, 2009 9:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How is this a relevant question...?
Yes, I have 2 children . Do you?
- Rethynk
September 11, 2009 10:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes
I do have children - I did not mean to get personal - I just know that I could never bear the thought of someone harming them and that colors my opinion. I wish you happiness with your family.
- just a thought
September 12, 2009 9:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
coloring
Nobody wants their children to be harmed... but that does not make it ethical to execute people.
Even though you may wish for someone who harmed your children to die... you also must be willing to accept that that will lead to someone who is innocent being killed.
- MrBook
September 12, 2009 11:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
MrBook
I repeat my comment to you from yesterday - is there ANYTHING you do not know? There is really no need to fashion one of your brilliant replies to this response.
- just a thought
September 12, 2009 11:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why must Christians "tolerate" murderers?
[Since when did Christians advocate death?] Rethynk
Well, as a Christian, I'm not going to tolerate someone that kills and I believe Jesus knows my heart. Just because I am a Christian, it doesn't mean that I have to allow myself to be walked all over. The death penalty is a LAW and as such, we are to abide by authority and laws of our land - per the bible .
[A true " pro-life " individual is one who is against the death penalty as passionately as he is against abortion .] Rethynk
Now, abortion and the death penalty are totally separate issues - huge difference. I am pro-life - no one has the authority to end the life of an innocent, unborn human child - innocent being the key term. A deviant adult or young adult, who knows right from wrong, that murders deserves the death penalty. A deviant, again - someone understanding right from wrong, that commits a crime against innocent children should also receive the death penalty.
- JesusIsLord
September 23, 2009 12:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So it's okay
to kill people who deserve it--or at least, those who THINK we deserve it, because we have and continue to get it wrong and kill innocent people all the time.
You've got a bit of a paradoxical standpoint in that you say that the Bible tells you to abide by the law of the land--Great. Go Bible. Excellent. However, you also say that a person who commits a crime against innocent children --an abortion provider, or a person who has an abortion, or whatnot--those people also deserve to die. Now, according to the laws of the land--these people are breaking no law . Killing them would make you a criminal--a "deviant". How do you reconcile that paradox.
If you say that the Bible trumps earthly authority, which is something you can do, you're left with a few other confusing options. First of all, how do you recommend we treat those that kill abortion providers--the recent case of Dr. Tiller being an example. Should we let his murderer go free because the law HE acted in accordance with trumps are own? Possibly reward him?
How do we react to biblical law, as well? Does biblical law trump our own law? Remember which sort of things warrant the death penalty in the Bible--Should we begin enforcing those as the Bible tells us to? Killing anyone who works on the Sabbath? Saying they're the son of G-d?
- quantummechanik
September 23, 2009 1:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here's What I Said...
As I stated in another post, unless you (and those with your views) can pinpoint someone on earth with a supernatural power to see all truth, then yes, innocent men and women may die if convicted and sentenced to the death penalty . There is not anything on earth manmade - no structure, no ideology, no process - that could be considered "perfect."
To clarify my views:
1) Abortion is legal in the US, so those that provide abortions go unpunished. Do I think those that provide abortions (by dismembering and shoving scissors into the base of an unborn child's skull while the fetus is alive) should get the death penalty, yes. Our laws don't allow for that at this time.
2) A woman that uses abortion as birth control needs to be sterilized. Of course, after having an abortion, these women die inside anyway - which they should.
3) Dr. Tiller (definitely a bottom feeder) - Although this man killed thousands upon thousands of LATE term babies , his killer broke the law , and should get the death penalty. Similarly, but not reported as prolifically as the Tiller murder , the pro-life activist recently killed for his display of the truth - a sign showing a dismembered fetus. The man that killed the activist should get the death penalty as well.
I never said the bible trumps earthly authority. I believe the bible is the divinely inerrant word of God and given to mankind for us to use as a guide for any and all human interaction. I did mention that the bible (NT) instructs us to respect those in authority (even when we disagree) and to abide by the law that society puts in place. The death penalty was warranted in the Old Testament for many things, although, I don't recall working on the Sabbath as being one of them. The New Testament is about forgiveness and the Glory of the unselfish sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
- JesusIsLord
September 23, 2009 2:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So what percentage
of innocent people put to death by the state are you okay with? Because it's gotta be above zero.
- quantummechanik
September 23, 2009 3:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We need more than just the death penalty!
We need stronger deterrents in place BEFORE needing to send offenders to their death. I am for harsh treatment and public humiliation of certain offenders. Although I know sin is sin, and no sin is greater than another to God, however, in my human heart I agree with the following punishment(s):
If someone steals, they should lose a hand...
If someone rapes, they should lose the offending body part...
If a woman gives birth to a drug addicted baby, her ovaries should be removed...
If a woman uses abortion as a means of birth control, her ovaries should be removed...
If someone molests children , put them to death following the FIRST offense and don't give them another change to hurt the innocent...
If someone abuses their spouse and/or children, they lose an arm...
If someone kills, put them to death...
I would like to see some valid statistics on deterring crime with beheadings, public hangings, old sparky, etc. as opposed to our tidy death by lethal injection that we now use. We are to dislike the sin, but love the sinner. Obviously, abiding by this directive poses an inner turmoil within me - I do admit that.
- JesusIsLord
May 7, 2009 1:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Biblical 'Justice'
An eye for an eye? Doesn't that make the whole world blind?
These absolute punishments are great, as long as you are either 100% sure that they will always be applied correctly... or are comfortable with the idea of chopping off an innocent persons hand. Remember the ideal in our justice system is to protect the innocent, not punish the guilty (which is why we have innocent until proven guilty and such).
"If someone steals, they should lose a hand..."
even an apple from an apple cart? A CD from a store? Most of those who steal are already experiencing economic hardship, chopping off their hand is not going to do much to improve their life.
"If someone rapes, they should lose the offending body part..."
as terrible as the crime of rape is there is often some grey areas, 'he said / she said' and such. It is a very hard crime to prove in most instances... and again you are likely to catch innocent people in your rush to castrate the guilty.
"If a woman gives birth to a drug addicted baby, her ovaries should be removed..."
Rather harsh, and with no regard for the circumstances of the woman's life.
"If a woman uses abortion as a means of birth control, her ovaries should be removed..."
even a teenage girl raped by her teacher?
"If someone molests children , put them to death following the FIRST offense and don't give them another change to hurt the innocent..."
Always an easy target for hatred... though again you are going to be killing innocent people.
"If someone abuses their spouse and/or children, they lose an arm..."
Another easy target, and while I agree that children should be removed from abusive homes permanently crippling an abuser seems to do more to satisfy an atavistic desire for revenge.
"If someone kills, put them to death..."
A seemingly good idea, until you look at the statistics about how the death penalty is applied (hitting ethnic minorities and the poor far more then the majority or the wealthy). It was after I looked at those statistics that I went from a supporter of the death penalty to an opponent.
"I would like to see some valid statistics on deterring crime with beheadings, public hangings, old sparky, etc. as opposed to our tidy death by lethal injection that we now use."
Well for statistics on beheadings and hand chopping we'll have to look at Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries (though there would have to be some care taken to keep the statistics clear of women being stoned to death for adultery, not being a virgin when they are married, or for executions of homosexuals). Studies have shown that the death penalty is not a serious deterrent from criminal activity, and I believe that those studies covered a period of time when 'old sparky' was in use.
- MrBook
June 5, 2009 4:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I am curious...
Mr. Book - is there ANYTHING you don't know?
- just a thought
September 11, 2009 10:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
All Seeing & All Knowing? Wow - It's great to be MrBook, huh?
- [An eye for an eye? Doesn't that make the whole world blind?] MrBook
Nice philosophical response, but I do stand by every comment I made. I am a flawed human being - not our Lord and Savior - and if someone rapes one of my children , they better hope that the lawmen find them before I do.
=========
- [as terrible as the crime of rape is there is often some grey areas, 'he said / she said' and such. It is a very hard crime to prove in most instances... and again you are likely to catch innocent people in your rush to castrate the guilty.] MrBook
This is the only reference I'll use, because many of your responses follow the same vein where the innocent are proven guilty. To this, I agree, but we aren't God and are required to search for the truth to the best of our abilities. Unfortunately, minorities are the primary offenders that end up in jail due to socioeconomic disadvantages (this is an entirely separate discussion and/or debate). Our jails are overcrowded, but inmates are very well cared for, especially those on death row. It shouldn't take years upon years for a criminal's death sentence to be carried out!
In my opinion, ANY crimes against children should require the harshest punishments. Period. People proven guilty by DNA per findings of a rape exam - sterilize them. Women that choose not to uphold the life & importance of an unborn child - sterilize them. Tax payers don't need to keep funding hospital care for drug addicted mother 's that continue to get pregnant.
I remain confident that crime in countries where public humiliation and reprisal are used, remain the most crime free areas of the world.
=========
I believe in Jesus Christ and believe that He died for my sins - for the sins of all mankind. I have very strong views and thus an inner turmoil to follow the "turn the other cheek" & "I must forgive, or I won't be forgiven" aspect of the New Testament. It is also very hard for me to see and consider all sin to be on a level plane - to be equal.
- JesusIsLord
September 23, 2009 12:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
vigilante
“Nice philosophical response, but I do stand by every comment I made. I am a flawed human being - not our Lord and Savior - and if someone rapes one of my children , they better hope that the lawmen find them before I do.”
Interesting… are you claiming that vigilante action is ethical or moral?
More importantly how could you be sure when you ‘found them’ that it was the right ‘them’? If you are told ‘Bill raped me at a party last night’ and you go kill Bill what happens when it turns out that Bill was at the movies that night… and that it was his friend Bob, who borrowed Bills jacket, that performed the assault?
Killing people just because you feel they deserve it set’s a very bad precedent… because if it is ok when you do it how can you complain when someone else does it for another crime ?
“This is the only reference I'll use, because many of your responses follow the same vein where the innocent are proven guilty. To this, I agree, but we aren't God and are required to search for the truth to the best of our abilities.”
Yes! An in acknowledging our imperfection means recognizing that sometimes innocent people will get caught up in the system… and we have to do what we can to protect them… which is why I do not support executions.
“Unfortunately, minorities are the primary offenders that end up in jail due to socioeconomic disadvantages (this is an entirely separate discussion and/or debate).”
It is very relevant to this debate. Minorities are disproportionately sent to jail because they cannot, on average, afford the same level of legal council. As such people end up in prison and on death row due not to their guilt but their economic status… which seems fundamentally unjust to me (shouldn’t ones guilt be based on ones guilt?).
“Our jails are overcrowded, but inmates are very well cared for, especially those on death row. It shouldn't take years upon years for a criminal's death sentence to be carried out!”
Well ignoring for a moment my opposition to executions… shouldn’t we be as careful as possible when executing people? If you were on death row wouldn’t you want every opportunity to prove your innocence?
“In my opinion, ANY crimes against children should require the harshest punishments. Period. People proven guilty by DNA per findings of a rape exam - sterilize them. “
I seem to remember a provision somewhere about ‘cruel and unusual punishment’… somewhere important…
Women that choose not to uphold the life & importance of an unborn child - sterilize them. Tax payers don't need to keep funding hospital care for drug addicted mother 's that continue to get pregnant.
In an atavistic sense I agree with your bit about sending child molesters to see Citizen Snips… but this? You would strip a woman of her ability to have children just because she is at a low point in her life? Would you rather foot the bill for her treatment when she becomes injured during a botched illegal abortion ?
“I remain confident that crime in countries where public humiliation and reprisal are used, remain the most crime free areas of the world.”
The list of countries that do so includes such beacons of freedom like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and Afghanistan. Those are the exemplars of justice that you think we should look to?
“I believe in Jesus Christ and believe that He died for my sins - for the sins of all mankind. I have very strong views and thus an inner turmoil to follow the "turn the other cheek" & "I must forgive, or I won't be forgiven" aspect of the New Testament. It is also very hard for me to see and consider all sin to be on a level plane - to be equal.”
So what is it? Do you support the death penalty , knowing that innocent people are being killed, knowing that the penalty is being applied to people because of their economic status not their guilt? Or do you recognize the ethical / moral problems that arise when a state executes its own citizens?
- MrBook
September 23, 2009 5:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Two wrongs don't make a right
The only legitimate " death penalty " is carried out at the scene and time of the attempted attack by the armed intended victim or a rescuer. Anything else is simply "revenge". There is no government anywhere honest enough to be trusted with the power of life and death.
- KentMcManigal May 20, 2009 12:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
New testament Biblical justice
Forgiving.Romans 1.30-32
- countryboy
June 5, 2009 6:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Saddam Hussein
The Death Penalty in the case of Saddam Hussein may have worked to disband his loyalists who might otherwise be even more actively violent in efforts rescue him or kidnap people and demand him in exchange for hostages.
- AtheistInsurgency
June 10, 2009 8:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not exactly
I think they should do more of it. If they 100% sure without a doubt, by all means use the death penalty . I say we implement the public court house lawn punishments. A bullet, a rope and stones are much cheaper than a prison cell, especially if there is no chance of the criminal ever getting out. I am not saying execute every law breaker, but only the deserving ones.
- rkm
July 7, 2009 11:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
murder is murder
i dont understand some conservatives ( i myself am a conservative) when they say abortion should be outlawed but the penalty should be put into overdrive. to me that makes absolutely no sense at all. murder is murder whether its a fetus or a criminal, your either against both or for both, you cant have such a contradiction as this, thats why i dont agree with it anymore. if im against killing a baby then im against killing a criminal its as simple as that.
- camdaddy09
July 7, 2009 2:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You Are Very Wrong...
Murder is most certainly not murder , whether fetus or criminal act. How can you even see them as remotely similar? The unborn child in a womb is completely INNOCENT and defenseless. A depraved serial killer or murderer is someone that knows right from wrong, yet they take a life regardless. If you want an equal comparison - killing a murderer by the death penalty is the same as the murderer killing his victim.
- JesusIsLord
September 23, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Innocence doesn't matter
its still murder whether your innocent or not.
- camdaddy09
September 23, 2009 1:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Passion Crimes Should NEVER Get The Death Penalty
Yet when it comes to those crazies who plan out a murder or plan out murders for monetary, power or any other so called "righteous" reasoning, I'm thinking those kind of murderers should come before the court/their peers and a decent judge for their conviction..... getting off of a murder charge, cause they have an expensive lawyer shouldn't be allowable .... all rules must apply for all citizens.....ahhh yes that would take place in a perfect world with a perfect court system that kills on the "perfect" criminal....okay we know that wont happen so cross your fingers , throw salt over your left shoulder and pray for the best outcome or just know, there is no truth, there is only a Perception and we all have opinions, nothing more.
- gotUbabe
August 17, 2009 6:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Absolutely Not!!
I work with children and I have my own child on the way. Everyday in my work I encounter children who have been victims of ongoing abuse. I hear horror stories about what these children have had to endure and witness in their short lives. The thought of adults taking advantage of a child in such a disgusting way, makes me sick to my stomach. As a mother to be, I can only imagine my reaction if my child was ever a victim of violent sexual assault or was killed in a brutal way. I would seek out the bastard that did it and kill them myself. So if we as a society decide that death penalty is wrong, then expect the rates of revenge killings to increase. Forgiveness is fine for some, but it's not my strong suit, and how dare someone get to go on living in any capacity if they have brutally taken the life of another, especially a child. Besides is it proven that violent offenders can rehabilitate and become good citizens? Show me these stats because from what I have read most criminals are repeat offenders, especially sexual offenders. I wish the justice system was stronger, more reliable and free of prejudice, but it will never be. There are people who have been put to death that I don't think deserved it and others who were spared who deserved nothing less than death. When you know the back story, you see how peoples' violent sides were cultivated, for example Aileen Wuornos lived a life that I assume would make anyone want to kill, but it doesn't make what she did okay. This man, Jeremy Joseph Strohmeyer, however deserves to die a thousand deaths for what he did. I will even go so far as to say offenders like this should be castrated. Think about it. Think about living everyday with the knowledge that the person who abused and tortured and in the end killed your loved one, went on living, breathing, seeing sky, hearing music everyday; you would wish he or she was dead too. It doesnt matter if the death penalty is a deterrent, I don't believe it is and I don't think that is the point at all. Just like funerals are held for those left alive to grieve, so to should the criminals be killed; not just to bring peace to those left behind in mourning but to protect the world from ongoing violence.
- camantonio
September 17, 2009 4:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Emotional response
Yes, the thought of an adult taking advantage of a child is repugnant. However isn't it equally repugnant for a government to execute innocent people?
"As a mother to be, I can only imagine my reaction if my child was ever a victim of violent sexual assault or was killed in a brutal way. I would seek out the bastard that did it and kill them myself."
And how would you ensure that you killed the right individual? If you killed the wrong person would you let that individuals family kill you? If your child was falsely killed by someone seeking revenge for their slain child would you just shrug it off?
"Think about living everyday with the knowledge that the person who abused and tortured and in the end killed your loved one, went on living, breathing, seeing sky, hearing music everyday; you would wish he or she was dead too."
Yes, I probably would... but that does not make it right.
I'd rather that they spent the rest of their lives in a small room then taking the easy way out.
"Just like funerals are held for those left alive to grieve, so to should the criminals be killed; not just to bring peace to those left behind in mourning but to protect the world from ongoing violence."
Can you show evidence that executions reduce crime ?
- MrBook
September 22, 2009 6:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Would that also mean?
...That we should treat individuals as though they are innocent even after being proven guilty in a court of law ? By that argument sending them to prison for 25 to life where they can be beaten, raped and even murdered is also not acceptable. Is that how you want someone who may be innocent to spend the rest of their lives?
- jpcorc
September 22, 2009 2:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
treatment
“...That we should treat individuals as though they are innocent even after being proven guilty in a court of law ?”
Legally, no… but we have to recognize that mistakes are made in the prison system. It is a delicate balance, between protecting the structure of society and protecting the individuals that make up that society.
“By that argument sending them to prison for 25 to life where they can be beaten, raped and even murdered is also not acceptable. Is that how you want someone who may be innocent to spend the rest of their lives?”
That is more of an argument for prison reform then not imprisoning people.
- MrBook
September 22, 2009 6:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.