Capital Punishment: yay or nay?

[Twin Fist]

What say you?

Talking about Bob Barr we got sidetracked on the death penalty.

I myself favor the liberal and gratuitous use of the death penalty. I think we need to make more crimes capital crimes. And limit appeals to 12 months, maximum.

What do you think?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm not convinced it works as a deterant, and it's really not "acceptable" within my own beliefs, though in some cases I'm hard pressed not to make exceptions.

 

[terryl965]

If the crime fits then Yes. I know I am just a hard press guy.

 

[Sukerkin]

It doesn't work as a deterrent, it is true. Most non-drug-related murders are what used to be termed 'crimes of passion' - no thought of consequences exists at the moment of the crime and so no punishment, however harsh, is a deterrent.

However, that being a given, I am strongly in favour of the punishment fitting the crime and most certainly in the case of individuals presenting a real threat to society as a whole believe that the death penalty is justified.

We've talked on this before I'm sure and I'm also sure that I inputted to those discourses but just to reiterate, my major reservation on enacting the death penalty is certainty of proof. I am uneasy about passing the legal power to a government to kill it's own citizens in the first place and for me to be remotely at peace with the idea there has to be certainty of proof. Not 'reasonable doubt' in the eyes of a jury but real proof.

 

[Empty Hands]

I have nothing against it in principle, but I have big problems with the way it is carried out. There are too many big problems with the justice system in general and the death penalty adjudication in particular in order to endorse it. Everything from sentencing disparities to the Innocence Project has shown that. Such problems led the Republican governor of Illinois to institute a moratorium on the death penalty in that state. Once those problems are cleared up (won't hold my breath) I would have no problem with it again.

 

[Nolerama]

I think that capital punishment is a lazy form of the Judeo-Christian "Eye For An Eye" belief, which unfortunately, is the perspective that many Americans view as the reason for capital punishment; myself included (at times).

I call it "lazy" because it's not an equal punishment for the terror, anguish and/or grief that the condemned person's initial transgression inflicted upon a community.

So we kill that person... AFTER locking him up for years on Death Row. Personally, I think it's even MORE of a disservice to taxpayers by keeping someone on Death Row for X amount of years while they await their death.

If we REALLY want to be literal and logical about condemning violators against humanity, then we should match it with the exact (or similarly damaging) act that the condemned did in the first place. An Eye For An Eye, right?

Rape the rapists. If a murderer killed someone's son, then kill the murderer's son. Etc. Etc.

To many those suggestions are extremely unethical. It's definitely not an American thing... So where can we be literal and have an even crime/punishment playing field?

We can't. That's why "Capital Punishment" as we know it is flawed... And ultimately LAZY.

I say, NO to Capital Punishment. We can do better. With the increase in privatization in our prison system, we can't, since the companies are always looking after their profit margins, and don't care about rehabilitation, justice, or effective punishment. The daily agenda is completely different from the intention.

(I actually wrote a paper hypothesizing that with proper brain chemical stimulation, emotions could be induced through drugs, and can make the user suffer in similar ways like that of the family or community that he or she affected. It sounded cool, but probably wouldn't work.)

 

[Archangel M]

It deterrs at least one killer from killing again, but I dont care if its a deterrent. Its punishment. Im all for it as long as it falls within some established guidelines. 20 eyewitnesses, a confession and physical evidence? Yes..absolutely. A circumstantial case based on forensics only and no body? Uhhh..no.

 

[arnisador]

I have nothing against it in principle, but I have big problems with the way it is carried out. There are too many big problems with the justice system in general and the death penalty adjudication in particular in order to endorse it. Everything from sentencing disparities to the Innocence Project has shown that. Such problems led the Republican governor of Illinois to institute a moratorium on the death penalty in that state.

Yes, I used to be more in favor of it but while I still am not offended by the principle I more and more find the practice unacceptable. (Seeing the governor of Illinois institute a moratorium on it really got me thinking.) There are too many people on Death Row who have been shown to be not guilty. There are too many questions of fairness. All in all, I think a govt. should be loathe to execute its own citizens, and the more humane thing to do is use imprisonment. With the practical concerns mentioned above I just can't support it now.

The point about "crimes of passion" is also well-taken.

 

[grydth]

We have capital punishment all across the land, happens every day. It is only the innocent victims who suffer it. The vicious killers then quickly find reasons why they are too good to die.

That said, use it too freely and you have nothing better than the French Revolution at the height of the Terror.

Limit appeals arbitrarily and you greatly increase the probability that you'll kill an innocent person in the name of the USA - and isn't that murder?

I also believe that cries for the death penalty would decrease somewhat if prison were exactly that, instead of a 3 star hotel with free gym and cable tv; and if a sentence of life in prison actually meant that hopeless fate.

 

[stickarts]

I am not for it. It has not been shown to be a deterent. The thought of someone being found guilty incorrectly is a problem, and ethically I have too many doubts about it.

 

[MA-Caver]

I'm for capital punishment on certain types of offenses.
Serial murders with absolute proof that the man they have is indeed the killer (i.e. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahlmer, J.W. Gacy, etc.). They should NOT sit on death row for more than 12 months, period.
Even on crimes of passion, while it depends. Murdering a child, absolutely. There is absolutely NO excuse or reason for ANYONE intentionally taking the life of a child. They should not survive the child either way.
Basically any heinous crime against children (molestation, porn, etc.) should be punishable by death. These guys DO NOT reform!

Jealous lover murders... that depends, hot blooded pissed off type of killings... well, they should get life. Cold-blooded calculated murders... death.

Gang killings... death penalty no appeal. These people are far too violent to remain in society. Same with racial killings because they're fueled by hatred and done without remorse.

Others... they depend.

Problem with I think of capital punishment is that people have become so adverse to the idea of killing that they tend to neglect the victims of such horrendous crimes.

 

[MJS]

What say you?

Talking about Bob Barr we got sidetracked on the death penalty.

I myself favor the liberal and gratuitous use of the death penalty. I think we need to make more crimes capital crimes. And limit appeals to 12 months, maximum.

What do you think?

There are many cases of people sitting in prison, on death row, or ones that have been put to death, that are innocent. I'm always amazed at stuff like that. I mean, it goes to show, that all of the evidence must not be present. One has to wonder why though.

As for the guilty ones, the ones where all of the fingers point to them...in that case, yes, I agree with you...put a damn time frame on the appeals. People sit and sit and sit, the families have to re-live the experience every time there is an appeal...its crazy.

As for what crimes should be worthy of the death penalty: violent crimes. The home invasion that happened in Cheshire, CT (there is a thread on that subject on this forum for those that want to look for it) You had 2 dirt bags break into a house, kill the wife and 2 daughters, and pretty much beat the **** out of the husband, then light the house on fire! I say strap those scumbags into the chair and pull the switch.

 

[Ray]

It has not been shown to be a deterent.

It deters a person from killing a second, third....time.

 

[Big Don]

It deters a person from killing a second, third....time.

It deters others from killing also. BUT, (and that was a big but) the deterrent effect is killed (pun intended) by having "Death Rows" where thousands grow old while wasting thousands of hours and millions of dollars on endless appeals. Texas, when George Bush was governor and Florida at the same time, were killing criminals at a much higher rate than other states like CA and NY who technically have the death penalty and yet, fold when it is time to use it, and they saw a decline in those crimes punishable by death.

In the simplest terms, the punishments prescribed for crimes are threats to keep people from committing those crimes. A threat that is never carried out is nothing to fear, criminals, and, by the way, foreign governments, terrorists, and other scumbags, know this and fear not.

 

[Big Don]

A slightly off topic point that begs to be addressed:
Assuming capital punishment is legal and in timely use, do you really care about the method?
Shouldn't we, in the name of environmentalism, if nothing else, return to hangings as the preferred method of execution? a rope can be used over and over...
Is swabing the soon to be dead criminal's arm really needed for lethal injection? Wouldn't a HUGE injection (6-8 oz, whatever)of siezed cocaine, heroin, etc do the job cheaper than the cocktail most often in use? The needles could also be used more than once, they'd probably outlast the rope...
Honestly, the body is going to be buried anyway, wouldn't just kicking them into a hole and backfilling it with a bulldozer work...

 

[arnisador]

death penalty no appeal

How exactly do you mean this? If the local circuit court judge in Dogwaddle, New Mexico sentences you to death, it's simply carried out immediately, as soon as the gov. signs the warrant? No chance for a higher court to see if you were railroaded, or Nifonged, or denied your right to an attorney, or what-have-you?

Judge Dredd, anyone?

 

[jarrod]

like many others, i'm okay with it in theory but opposed to it in practice. nietzsche made an interesting arguement, i think it was in beyond good & evil. essentially, he argued that the problem with capital punishment was that it taught society that killing wasn't wrong, only that killing for the wrong reasons is wrong. most criminals think they have a very good reason for doing what they do. i don't know if he was right or not, but it's food for thought.

A slightly off topic point that begs to be addressed:
Assuming capital punishment is legal and in timely use, do you really care about the method?
Shouldn't we, in the name of environmentalism, if nothing else, return to hangings as the preferred method of execution? a rope can be used over and over...
Is swabing the soon to be dead criminal's arm really needed for lethal injection? Wouldn't a HUGE injection (6-8 oz, whatever)of siezed cocaine, heroin, etc do the job cheaper than the cocktail most often in use? The needles could also be used more than once, they'd probably outlast the rope...
Honestly, the body is going to be buried anyway, wouldn't just kicking them into a hole and backfilling it with a bulldozer work...

if capital punishment is to be carried out, i think firing squad is resonable. it's inexpensive & near instant. as far as hanging & kicking the body in a hole...whatever crime someone has committed, that person still more than likely has family & people who love them. they already have to lose someone they love, i don't think they need to know that their son/brother/father/whatever kicked on the end of a rope for ten minutes before being disposed of like diseased livestock.

but don's post does make me think of an intersting point: is punishment & revenge the same thing? is the goal of punishment to restore harmony or to make society feel better?

jf

 

[MA-Caver]

How exactly do you mean this? If the local circuit court judge in Dogwaddle, New Mexico sentences you to death, it's simply carried out immediately, as soon as the gov. signs the warrant? No chance for a higher court to see if you were railroaded, or Nifonged, or denied your right to an attorney, or what-have-you?

Judge Dredd, anyone?

By that I meant that they have their day in court. THEIR attorney will need to gather as much evidence to PROVE their client is innocent and the DA needs to do the same for guilty. But in those cases it's usually open/shut that witnesses, etc. has shown them to be the guilty party... the appeals process is just dragging it on and on and on. They're cold blooded killers that take a life for some insignificant reason, like just wearing rival gang colors for example.
Remember the story of a gang shooting of a young teenage deaf girl who was talking/signing to her friend while waiting for the bus... the gang bangas thought she was flashing (rival) gang signs at them... idiots like those we don't need in our society.

 

[celtic_crippler]

What say you?

Talking about Bob Barr we got sidetracked on the death penalty.

I myself favor the liberal and gratuitous use of the death penalty. I think we need to make more crimes capital crimes. And limit appeals to 12 months, maximum.

What do you think?

I agree that offenses other than murder warrent the death penalty; however, I believe that there can be no room for error in sentencing one to capital punishment.

There must be clear, concise, hard evidence that eleminates any shadow of a doubt.

I don't necessarily feel that the only reason to endorse capital punishment is as a deterant either; I think that there are simply some individuals that are better off dead instead of continueing to leech off of society. To be perfectly blunt; a bullet to the head is a lot cheaper than feeding them, caring for them, clothing them, etc for the remainder of their lives. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on education and/or health care for those that do try to contribute to society.

Now...if you instead gave them the option to work on a corrections farm as an opportunity to avoid the death penatly...that would be even better. Let them work in a self-sufficient facility where they grow crops to provide for their own clothing and food....where they can work in factories to process the raw materials they are producting. Allow them to sell surplus items at fair market value to cover other expenses (like gaurds salaries) and take the surplus from that profit and send the victims/surviors family as a type of restitution. That way they are at least contributing more than they are taking...if they refuse the farm...zap 'em.

 

[stickarts]

It deters a person from killing a second, third....time.

No argument there.