Death Penalty?

[Corporal Hicks]

Hi,
Over here in Britain, and I believe in alot of European countries we dont have the death penalty.
I was just going to ask you guys in American and other nations which have the death penalty, or indeed anybody who has a particular view on the subject to say if they think that it works or not? Is it costing innocent people lives? Or is it an effective way or clearing the "scum" of the streets? Or maybe a way of keeping the law abiding population happy knowing that their local mass murderer is currently facing lethal injection?

What about the ways death is delt? Should it be more painful, for surely their crime should result in them suffering like their victims or victims family? I'm unsure of the topic, what do you guys think?

Regards

 

[TonyM.]

Never has worked and never will.

 

[Ceicei]

The death penalty has its place. I'm thinking of serial murderers such as Ted Bundy. The death penalty stopped them (ie. they're no longer alive). They were true serial killers and would have killed again if they were alive and outside the prison system. Jeff Dahmer deserved the death penalty, although he was killed by other inmates while in prison.

- Ceicei

 

[FearlessFreep]

I think that for a death penalty to be effective as a deterent, it has to be something that is on someone's mind when they are about to commit a crime. "If I do this, I will probably be executed". Unfortunately, at least in the US, given the chance of getting away with something, they length of time before trial, the appeals, the plea bargains, the appeals of the sentance, then the stays of execution and the politics involved (different governers have differnt opinions, etc..) the death penalty is not really a deterent because it's not viewed of as definite possibility. So it's really become just the utimate punishment

I don't have anything against it as a concept, but it probably doesn't mean much in how it's currently carried out here

 

[Zepp]

The death penalty for crimes has been used since before recorded human history. If it was actually an effective deterent, don't you think we would have stopped killing each at some point in time, in some place that used it?

You could try to argue that capital punishment is intended to save us money, by getting rid of the worst offenders and preventing us taxpayers from paying to keep them in prison. But this argument is is refuted by the fact that it now costs more to put someone on "death row" here in the U.S., and keep them there until their execution, than it does to imprison them for life.

Capital punishment serves no practical purpose.

Wait, let me take that back. Capital punishment apparently provides a way for the state of Texas to get rid of some black people.

 

[michaeledward]

I think random assassinations by the state would be an equally effective deterent. Once every week or so, the state should walk up behind someone and shoot them in the head.

Quick effective, and likely to remove a guilty party from society.

Michael

 

[ShadowKnight]

In some aspects, the death penalty can be somewhat of a more humane thing to do.

Take the recent Scott Peterson trial for example. He murdered his wife and unborn child and was caught, tried, and sentenced to death. This however wont take place until about 20 years from now. His only other choice was life in prison.

If a man is sentanced for life, his life is over. To the public, he is dead and forgotten. Never to be seen or heard from again. Ya someone might visit him again but they would only be visiting a ghost. An apparition of his former self. Prison changes a person and not for the best.

Scott will serve the 20+ years in prison and then he will be set free. In my opinion, a social death can be worse than a physical one. When you are expiriencing social death, your confines become you and one can for a better release.

Death penalty shouldnt be viewed as slaughter, assassination, murder. It should be viewed as a transition from your physical body to a more natural state.

 

[Shu2jack]

I agree, it takes a lot more money to execute someone than what it costs to keep them in jail for a life sentence. Not worth it.

Though I don't want such a thing to happen out of fear of abuse or a huge margin of error, if we came up with a way to cheaply put a man on death row and greatly reduce the number of years they would sit in prision I would think the death penalty would be something to consider. It costs something like $25,000/yr to house an inmate. The public school I went to received about $6,500 a child per year. Think of all the money we would free up for our floundering schools.

Death penalty shouldnt be viewed as slaughter, assassination, murder. It should be viewed as a transition from your physical body to a more natural state.

I thought on the death certificate for executed inmates they put "Murder" as the cause of death......

Along those lines, I think they should make executions quick and painless if a country decides to have such a punishment. If nothing else, think of the psychological stress on those who administer the test and basically torture someone as they slowly die from a painful execution. I heard somewhere that the firing squad has the lowest margin of error out of all present methods of execution in the United States. As far as I know, no one has botched that.

 

[Raewyn]

Im in sort of two minds about it. The bible says "An eye for and Eye" or you could pay back in kind. But unfortunatley there are too many people being wrongfully imprisoned. so your damned if you do and damned if you dont!!!! We do not have the death penalty over here, but our jail's here are like health spa's. I dont think they act as deterrents. We have people over here who reoffend just to get back in jail as they cant seem to cope in the outside world!!! Jails arnt what they used to be!!!!

 

[Raewyn]

Oh and another thing, I might be getting off the subject here so do correct me if I am.

I was having a discussion with the guys at work about our jail systems here. Because of all the human rights issues, obviously when you go to jail those rights still apply. So at Christmas the inmates get a good cooked Christmas dinner, when they work they get paid etc etc. But Ive been thinking, most of them are in jail for having abused other people's rights, so why should they have rights!!!! Am I just being a bit one-eyed???. I would rather someone go to jail and pay my taxes to keep the jail operating while they pay for their crimes without rights that inmates get nowadays in jail, or spend mega dollars to have for example a petafile(cant spell it) who has gone to jail for 2 years out on 24 hour supervision with two people keeping an eye on him all that time just so that he can reoffend at a later date!!!! Arnt jails supposed to act as deterrents. Over here they are like santuarys!!!

 

[MA-Caver]

The death penalty for crimes has been used since before recorded human history. If it was actually an effective deterent, don't you think we would have stopped killing each at some point in time, in some place that used it?

You could try to argue that capital punishment is intended to save us money, by getting rid of the worst offenders and preventing us taxpayers from paying to keep them in prison. But this argument is is refuted by the fact that it now costs more to put someone on "death row" here in the U.S., and keep them there until their execution, than it does to imprison them for life.

Capital punishment serves no practical purpose.

Wait, let me take that back. Capital punishment apparently provides a way for the state of Texas to get rid of some black people.

IMO the only reason that the death penalty is costing taxpayers more than keeping them alive in prison til they grow old and die is because of the extreme lengths of time they spend on death-row. Bundy lived 17 something odd years before facing his final punishment. This, IMO is stupid. Yes, the man deserved to die but it should've happened at least within two years of his sentence. This is what I think costs the taxpayers money because death-row inmates are kept in an entirely seperate part of the prison, away from the general populace. Private cells and so forth mean more expenses.

As a deterrent, I agree that because of the long wait, stays, appeals and so forth don't make it as frightening to those that deserve it. If capital punishment were dealt out swiftly with no stays and multiple appeals then perhaps it would be a better deterrent. Murderers and other deserving crimiinals (i.e. serial rapists and chronic child molesters and kidnappers that kill their victims) aren't afraid of it because they know they got a long while to live (relatively speaking).

Methods? They're not as scary either. Ole' Sparky (aka electric chair) is rarely used but was/is terrifying enough to make the unrepentant killer sorry in the last day/moments before execution. The calm, passive Lethal Injection is too soft for those who violently murdered their victims, those guys are put to sleep before the lethal dose is inserted into the mix, they have no sense that they're dying, no fear... just a peaceful passing. A lot kinder than what they gave their victims. The Gas Chamber is no longer used but should be. We got loads of chemical weapons (nerve-gas) that we could use. Such cruel and unusual punishment might be too horrific for some people. But when you consider the agony that some murder victims go through prior to their deaths that is inflicted on them by the sadistic ones... they (the killers) should deserve no less. So ya, they should suffer as much as their victims, alibet not in the same way but just as frightening and soul awakening as possible.

Wait, let me take that back. Capital punishment apparently provides a way for the state of Texas to get rid of some black people.

I'm going to ask you to clairify this statement before commenting. What exactly do you mean by this? Is this a personal opinion or a possible statement of how Texas seems racially biased because of their (dis??)portionally high numbers of death sentences with people of color?

Capital punishment (IMO) is practical in that it rids our society those who are most dangerous whenever/wherever possible. I think we just need to shorten the length of time an convicted criminal stays on death-row. It'll at least keep their lawyers busy in working to find evidence that their client is really innocent.

 

[MA-Caver]

Oh and another thing, I might be getting off the subject here so do correct me if I am.

I was having a discussion with the guys at work about our jail systems here. Because of all the human rights issues, obviously when you go to jail those rights still apply. So at Christmas the inmates get a good cooked Christmas dinner, when they work they get paid etc etc. But Ive been thinking, most of them are in jail for having abused other people's rights, so why should they have rights!!!! Am I just being a bit one-eyed???. I would rather someone go to jail and pay my taxes to keep the jail operating while they pay for their crimes without rights that inmates get nowadays in jail, or spend mega dollars to have for example a petafile(cant spell it) who has gone to jail for 2 years out on 24 hour supervision with two people keeping an eye on him all that time just so that he can reoffend at a later date!!!! Arnt jails supposed to act as deterrents. Over here they are like santuarys!!!

For many prisoners they are sanctuaries. However; pedophiles are generally treated harsher by their fellow (non-pedo) inmates. Apparently even if they commit crimes to another adult, they still hold a sexual assault/offense against a child a reason to punish and view them as lower than scum.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

I think random assassinations by the state would be an equally effective deterent. Once every week or so, the state should walk up behind someone and shoot them in the head.

Quick effective, and likely to remove a guilty party from society.

Michael

Lol! Thats Random!

 

[Corporal Hicks]

Oh and another thing, I might be getting off the subject here so do correct me if I am.

I was having a discussion with the guys at work about our jail systems here. Because of all the human rights issues, obviously when you go to jail those rights still apply. So at Christmas the inmates get a good cooked Christmas dinner, when they work they get paid etc etc. But Ive been thinking, most of them are in jail for having abused other people's rights, so why should they have rights!!!! Am I just being a bit one-eyed???. I would rather someone go to jail and pay my taxes to keep the jail operating while they pay for their crimes without rights that inmates get nowadays in jail, or spend mega dollars to have for example a petafile(cant spell it) who has gone to jail for 2 years out on 24 hour supervision with two people keeping an eye on him all that time just so that he can reoffend at a later date!!!! Arnt jails supposed to act as deterrents. Over here they are like santuarys!!!

I agree with that, as I said in another thread. It seems like the Criminal's Justice System not the Criminal Justice System.

 

[Zepp]

MACaver,

My comment about Texas executing black people was just a sarcastic jibe alluding to the disproportionate number of people on death row in that state who's race is listed as "black." It wasn't really intended for serious disscussion, and I'm sorry if you or anyone else found that remark offensive. But if you really want to get into the overuse and probable abuses of the death penalty in Texas, and in some other states, I'm sure we could keep a discussion going in the Study for a couple pages.

(For those who want to see some statistics, try this page: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm)

As a deterrent, I agree that because of the long wait, stays, appeals and so forth don't make it as frightening to those that deserve it. If capital punishment were dealt out swiftly with no stays and multiple appeals then perhaps it would be a better deterrent. Murderers and other deserving crimiinals (i.e. serial rapists and chronic child molesters and kidnappers that kill their victims) aren't afraid of it because they know they got a long while to live (relatively speaking).

You do realize of course, that the lengthy appeals process would protect your rights if you were accused of a capital crime, do you not?

I think we just need to shorten the length of time an convicted criminal stays on death-row. It'll at least keep their lawyers busy in working to find evidence that their client is really innocent.

Assuming that they have a decent lawyer. Few of the people on death row here in the U.S. today could afford Scott Peterson's attorney.

Raisin, question for you (or anyone else familiar with the Bible): In what part of the Bible can I find the passage dealing with "an eye for an eye?" As far as I know, that's a reference to the code of Hammaurabi, a Babylonian king. But I'm not the most biblically savvy person.

 

[michaeledward]

Oh and another thing, I might be getting off the subject here so do correct me if I am.

I was having a discussion with the guys at work about our jail systems here. Because of all the human rights issues, obviously when you go to jail those rights still apply. So at Christmas the inmates get a good cooked Christmas dinner, when they work they get paid etc etc. But Ive been thinking, most of them are in jail for having abused other people's rights, so why should they have rights!!!! Am I just being a bit one-eyed???. I would rather someone go to jail and pay my taxes to keep the jail operating while they pay for their crimes without rights that inmates get nowadays in jail, or spend mega dollars to have for example a petafile(cant spell it) who has gone to jail for 2 years out on 24 hour supervision with two people keeping an eye on him all that time just so that he can reoffend at a later date!!!! Arnt jails supposed to act as deterrents. Over here they are like santuarys!!!

You know what they don't have though, is the ability to go for a walk on a nice autumn day. They probably don't have the ability to decide what time they are going to bed, or what time they are going to wake up. The probably don't have the ability to decide what to wear each day.

There was an episode of the television M*A*S*H at the end of which Frank Burns was confined to his tent; Hawkeye Peirce would step outside the tent, then inside the tent, then outside the tent, then inside the tent. With each step, he taunted Burns about 'Freedom'.

When society takes away the ability for a citizen to walk where they want to walk, to wear what they want to wear, it is far more restrictive than having a Christmas Turkey, I think.

And of those offenders that re-offend because they can't adjust to life on the 'outside'; I think, perhaps, New Zealand could examine some 'transition' plans that could reduce this recidivism. I don't the United States will ever be so enlightened. I think it demands an examination of what is it about the stability of a prison that is comforting to the offender, how can those comforts be recreated outside the jail cell.

Michael

- Yes, my earlier comment was 'Random' and a bit sarcastic. There are several other threads about the Death Penalty on the board. I am 100% against capital punishment. There is no justificaiton, in my opinion, for the state to take the life of a citizen.

 

[michaeledward]

Oh and another thing, I might be getting off the subject here so do correct me if I am.

I was having a discussion with the guys at work about our jail systems here. Because of all the human rights issues, obviously when you go to jail those rights still apply. So at Christmas the inmates get a good cooked Christmas dinner, when they work they get paid etc etc. But Ive been thinking, most of them are in jail for having abused other people's rights, so why should they have rights!!!! Am I just being a bit one-eyed???. I would rather someone go to jail and pay my taxes to keep the jail operating while they pay for their crimes without rights that inmates get nowadays in jail, or spend mega dollars to have for example a petafile(cant spell it) who has gone to jail for 2 years out on 24 hour supervision with two people keeping an eye on him all that time just so that he can reoffend at a later date!!!! Arnt jails supposed to act as deterrents. Over here they are like santuarys!!!

You know what they don't have though, is the ability to go for a walk on a nice autumn day. They probably don't have the ability to decide what time they are going to bed, or what time they are going to wake up. The probably don't have the ability to decide what to wear each day.

There was an episode of the television M*A*S*H at the end of which Frank Burns was confined to his tent; Hawkeye Peirce would step outside the tent, then inside the tent, then outside the tent, then inside the tent. With each step, he taunted Burns about 'Freedom'.

When society takes away the ability for a citizen to walk where they want to walk, to wear what they want to wear, it is far more restrictive than having a Christmas Turkey, I think.

And of those offenders that re-offend because they can't adjust to life on the 'outside'; I think, perhaps, New Zealand could examine some 'transition' plans that could reduce this recidivism. I don't the United States will ever be so enlightened. I think it demands an examination of what is it about the stability of a prison that is comforting to the offender, how can those comforts be recreated outside the jail cell.

Michael

- Yes, my earlier comment was 'Random' and a bit sarcastic. There are several other threads about the Death Penalty on the board. I am 100% against capital punishment. There is no justificaiton, in my opinion, for the state to take the life of a citizen.

 

[MA-Caver]

MACaver,

My comment about Texas executing black people was just a sarcastic jibe alluding to the disproportionate number of people on death row in that state who's race is listed as "black." It wasn't really intended for serious disscussion, and I'm sorry if you or anyone else found that remark offensive. But if you really want to get into the overuse and probable abuses of the death penalty in Texas, and in some other states, I'm sure we could keep a discussion going in the Study for a couple pages.

(For those who want to see some statistics, try this page: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm)



You do realize of course, that the lengthy appeals process would protect your rights if you were accused of a capital crime, do you not?

Assuming that they have a decent lawyer. Few of the people on death row here in the U.S. today could afford Scott Peterson's attorney.

Raisin, question for you (or anyone else familiar with the Bible): In what part of the Bible can I find the passage dealing with "an eye for an eye?" As far as I know, that's a reference to the code of Hammaurabi, a Babylonian king. But I'm not the most biblically savvy person.

Yes, okay. That's why I asked for clairifcation because it's kinda hard to hear a sarcastic tone on a BB No foul no harm.

IMO anyone who breaks the law as governed for/by/of the people (should) have automatically have their "rights" revoked/suspended or simply thrown out the window. They violated the rights of their victims, took away their right to choose by murdering them. Thus should they be allowed better?
I think this is going to be my whole point on support of capital punishment because the loss of life and the callous manner/attitude that they were taken... Why should we be treating those that commit such acts with respect and give them dignified ways to die?

 

[FearlessFreep]

Raisin, question for you (or anyone else familiar with the Bible): In what part of the Bible can I find the passage dealing with "an eye for an eye?" As far as I know, that's a reference to the code of Hammaurabi, a Babylonian king. But I'm not the most biblically savvy person.

"If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him." Leviticus 24:19:20

This was generally taken to set a level of justice, to limit retribution, establishing not only a punishment for wrong-doing but also in keeping that punishment in level with the crime, ie...if a neighbor injurs you, the punishment was not allowed to be any more than the initial injury.

In other words, not just that if a someone pokes out your eye you *get* to poke out his eye in return but that is someone pokes out your eye you are not allowed to do *any more* than take out their eye

 

[MA-Caver]

Raisin, question for you (or anyone else familiar with the Bible): In what part of the Bible can I find the passage dealing with "an eye for an eye?" As far as I know, that's a reference to the code of Hammaurabi, a Babylonian king. But I'm not the most biblically savvy person.



This was generally taken to set a level of justice, to limit retribution, establishing not only a punishment for wrong-doing but also in keeping that punishment in level with the crime, ie...if a neighbor injurs you, the punishment was not allowed to be any more than the initial injury.

In other words, not just that if a someone pokes out your eye you *get* to poke out his eye in return but that is someone pokes out your eye you are not allowed to do *any more* than take out their eye

Yes true, but we (should) now understand that it's metaphorically speaking. Although the ancient Jews did take the letter of the law seriously, it's transformed from the time of Christ and even the pious Jews that didn't believe in him still made their changes and followed the context of the (old) law(s) and adapted them.
There are still some muslims in the world that follow their old laws to the letter. That recent outrage over the proposed stoning of a woman caught in adultery in Africa not too long ago, is a good example.
I dunno if my views on capital punishment and the methods (I described) are "old-world" thinking or not. But I do get riled when I think about how good prisoners get it compared to the crimes they committed. Perhaps I'm speaking subconciously as a previous victim of a violent crime. But as liberal as I am I still feel it's punishment meets the crime.