The Death Penalty

[R Ev0lution]

But what about people who've been sentenced to death who have since been shown to be innocent? Troy Davis comes to mind.

Safed phrased it perfectly: If new evidence surfaces that a man serving life in prison is innocent, he has a shot at appealing and getting out of prison. If new evidence surfaces that a man who's been executed was innocent, our entire society has the blood of an innocent citizen on its hands.

Pretty much every human society has committed atrocities far worse than the death of one man. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal.

The fact that previous atrocities have been committed does not make the next one any more acceptable.

Seriously, if you go kill somebody and try to justify it by saying that "Oh, other people have done far, far, far worse. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal!", do you think that's a valid defense?

[Unilisia]

Pretty much every human society has committed atrocities far worse than the death of one man. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal.

The fact that previous atrocities have been committed does not make the next one any more acceptable.

Seriously, if you go kill somebody and try to justify it by saying that "Oh, other people have done far, far, far worse. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal!", do you think that's a valid defense?

If someone is executed for a crime that people think that person did, and it is discovered that they were wrong later and get the actual person who committed the crime, it's one small mess up.

[Safed]

The fact that previous atrocities have been committed does not make the next one any more acceptable.

Seriously, if you go kill somebody and try to justify it by saying that "Oh, other people have done far, far, far worse. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal!", do you think that's a valid defense?

If someone is executed for a crime that people think that person did, and it is discovered that they were wrong later and get the actual person who committed the crime, it's one small mess up.

I think it is more than a little mess up for the person involved. Put yourself in their shoes for once, sentenced and faced by a highly painful injection only for the world at large to realise you were telling the truth about 15 years too late.

EDIT: R Ev0lution has put it very well below

[R Ev0lution]

The fact that previous atrocities have been committed does not make the next one any more acceptable.

Seriously, if you go kill somebody and try to justify it by saying that "Oh, other people have done far, far, far worse. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal!", do you think that's a valid defense?

If someone is executed for a crime that people think that person did, and it is discovered that they were wrong later and get the actual person who committed the crime, it's one small mess up.

Unfortunately, that's not justice. That's called "poor police work."

Here's the thing: murder isn't okay. This is why we pay good money to detectives and police officers who are trained to track down murderers -- because it is a big deal, and we make it a big deal. If we didn't think it was a big deal, then we wouldn't bother paying our homicide detectives and we wouldn't bother paying prosecutors and judges to make sure suspects are tried and we wouldn't build expensive-ass prisons to put murderers in jail. When somebody kills an innocent person, we, as a society, demand justice.

Society doesn't get to spend all that time, money, and effort hunting down murderers and enforcing justice (as you put it, "making a big deal out of it"), and then turn around when we ourselves kill an innocent person and say "Oh, far worse has has been done. It's one small mess-up. It's no big deal." If you're going to hold everybody else to a certain standard ("If you kill an innocent person, you must face the consequences."), you don't get to hold yourself to a different standard ("If I kill an innocent person, it's no big deal -- just one small mess-up."). That's not justice.

Justice isn't ONLY about putting criminals in jail; it's about holding everybody (including ourselves) accountable for our actions.

[Aethelstania]

No its disgusting, even if it did deter crime and had 100% chance of killing the right person I would still be against it. Revenge is not justice it fosters a lynch mob mentality and it disgusts me when I see people getting excited at peoples death. Slightly of topic but Bin Ladens death did not make me sad, I couldn't really describe how I felt about it but the fact I could see groups of morons chanting 'U S A' on the TV made me uncomfortable. You'd get a similar public reaction with paedophile cases and serial killers and rapists. These are disgusting people but killing them is A) Immoral B) Not Just C) EXPENSIVE and D) Shows a gross side of human nature

Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon and are wasting taxpayer money. Then the extra money saved from all those prisoners can be used to reform the prison system so it actually functions and rehabilitates.

Except that the death penalty is not exactly a cheap option either. It costs millions to keep prisoners on death row in America think how much the injection costs ? Then how much court time will be wasted because you would always appeal against a death sentence. This leads on to costs of judges, lawyers as well as holding prisoners in Jails before they go to court which costs money to

[Ethel mermania]

Where life is apprpriate, sure. For example, I think its more appropiate punishment for kacynski (sp) (unibomber). I think for mason and madoff, death is the right choice.

But what about people who've been sentenced to death who have since been shown to be innocent? Troy Davis comes to mind.

Safed phrased it perfectly: If new evidence surfaces that a man serving life in prison is innocent, he has a shot at appealing and getting out of prison. If new evidence surfaces that a man who's been executed was innocent, our entire society has the blood of an innocent citizen on its hands.

Madoff, is not innocent. Manson is not innocent. There are times when there is no question about the perpetrator.

That said, your point is valid, and in an ideal world we would not convict anyone falsely. But it does happen. If somehow you wanted to tighten the standards for the penalty phase of a capital case, I would be OK with that.

[R Ev0lution]

But what about people who've been sentenced to death who have since been shown to be innocent? Troy Davis comes to mind.

Safed phrased it perfectly: If new evidence surfaces that a man serving life in prison is innocent, he has a shot at appealing and getting out of prison. If new evidence surfaces that a man who's been executed was innocent, our entire society has the blood of an innocent citizen on its hands.

Madoff, is not innocent. Manson is not innocent. There are times when there is no question about the perpetrator.

That said, your point is valid, and in an ideal world we would not convict anyone falsely. But it does happen. If somehow you wanted to tighten the standards for the penalty phase of a capital case, I would be OK with that.

If there was some way to be 110% certain that a suspect was guilty, and it's obvious that he/she committed an outrageous atrocity that clearly calls for extreme consequences, I could get on board with the death penalty.

Unfortunately, there are no complete certainties in real life, and so I prefer not to advocate a system that is vulnerable to putting blood on my hands.

[Safed]

But what about people who've been sentenced to death who have since been shown to be innocent? Troy Davis comes to mind.

Safed phrased it perfectly: If new evidence surfaces that a man serving life in prison is innocent, he has a shot at appealing and getting out of prison. If new evidence surfaces that a man who's been executed was innocent, our entire society has the blood of an innocent citizen on its hands.

Madoff, is not innocent. Manson is not innocent. There are times when there is no question about the perpetrator.

That said, your point is valid, and in an ideal world we would not convict anyone falsely. But it does happen. If somehow you wanted to tighten the standards for the penalty phase of a capital case, I would be OK with that.

Even if they are definitely guilty, the death penalty isn't the way forward, it is not only more expensive than life imprisonment, but it is also:
Inhumane
Revenge Based - something no civilised society can base their law on
Not a deterrent, in fact the opposite

[Thesan]

Absolutely against, nobody deserves death penalty, nor the evilest of mankind, better a life sentence !

And... btw, I approve what Risottia said about Cesare Beccaria and I'm still astonished that it's still applicated even in some advanced countries like USA and Japan...

[Ethel mermania]

Madoff, is not innocent. Manson is not innocent. There are times when there is no question about the perpetrator.

That said, your point is valid, and in an ideal world we would not convict anyone falsely. But it does happen. If somehow you wanted to tighten the standards for the penalty phase of a capital case, I would be OK with that.

If there was some way to be 110% certain that a suspect was guilty, and it's obvious that he/she committed an outrageous atrocity that clearly calls for extreme consequences, I could get on board with the death penalty.

Unfortunately, there are no complete certainties in real life, and so I prefer not to advocate a system that is vulnerable to putting blood on my hands.

There are complete certainties in life, I have suggested two, Madoff and manson. There are a lot of others, colin fergeson, in new york, he shot up the long railroad, with an automatic weapon 6 or 7 dead, and about 8 wounded. He was captured when he ran out of ammo. I think we can safely say he is guilty.

[Englonia]

Crimes Involving sex, children and/or death should be punished by the death penalty here in australia.

[Unilisia]

No its disgusting, even if it did deter crime and had 100% chance of killing the right person I would still be against it. Revenge is not justice it fosters a lynch mob mentality and it disgusts me when I see people getting excited at peoples death. Slightly of topic but Bin Ladens death did not make me sad, I couldn't really describe how I felt about it but the fact I could see groups of morons chanting 'U S A' on the TV made me uncomfortable. You'd get a similar public reaction with paedophile cases and serial killers and rapists. These are disgusting people but killing them is A) Immoral B) Not Just C) EXPENSIVE and D) Shows a gross side of human nature

Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon and are wasting taxpayer money. Then the extra money saved from all those prisoners can be used to reform the prison system so it actually functions and rehabilitates.

Except that the death penalty is not exactly a cheap option either. It costs millions to keep prisoners on death row in America think how much the injection costs ? Then how much court time will be wasted because you would always appeal against a death sentence. This leads on to costs of judges, lawyers as well as holding prisoners in Jails before they go to court which costs money to

It's costly because it's made to be. Criminals shouldn't be held for years if they've already been sentenced to death. Once they arrive in prison, serve them their final meal and put a bullet in their head, then give the body to the family for funeral arrangements. Not very expensive if doneright.

[R Ev0lution]

No its disgusting, even if it did deter crime and had 100% chance of killing the right person I would still be against it. Revenge is not justice it fosters a lynch mob mentality and it disgusts me when I see people getting excited at peoples death. Slightly of topic but Bin Ladens death did not make me sad, I couldn't really describe how I felt about it but the fact I could see groups of morons chanting 'U S A' on the TV made me uncomfortable. You'd get a similar public reaction with paedophile cases and serial killers and rapists. These are disgusting people but killing them is A) Immoral B) Not Just C) EXPENSIVE and D) Shows a gross side of human nature



Except that the death penalty is not exactly a cheap option either. It costs millions to keep prisoners on death row in America think how much the injection costs ? Then how much court time will be wasted because you would always appeal against a death sentence. This leads on to costs of judges, lawyers as well as holding prisoners in Jails before they go to court which costs money to

It's costly because it's made to be. Criminals shouldn't be held for years if they've already been sentenced to death. Once they arrive in prison, serve them their final meal and put a bullet in their head, then give the body to the family for funeral arrangements. Not very expensive if doneright.

Unilisia, I'd like to hear your thoughts/responses to my previous post (the one that starts "Unfortunately, that's not justice."). I find it to be a very compelling counter-argument against yours, and I'd like to see you elaborate on your perspective.

[Unilisia]

If someone is executed for a crime that people think that person did, and it is discovered that they were wrong later and get the actual person who committed the crime, it's one small mess up.

Unfortunately, that's not justice. That's called "poor police work."

Here's the thing: murder isn't okay. This is why we pay good money to detectives and police officers who are trained to track down murderers -- because it is a big deal, and we make it a big deal. If we didn't think it was a big deal, then we wouldn't bother paying our homicide detectives and we wouldn't bother paying prosecutors and judges to make sure suspects are tried and we wouldn't build expensive-ass prisons to put murderers in jail. When somebody kills an innocent person, we, as a society, demand justice.

Society doesn't get to spend all that time, money, and effort hunting down murderers and enforcing justice (as you put it, "making a big deal out of it"), and then turn around when we ourselves kill an innocent person and say "Oh, far worse has has been done. It's one small mess-up. It's no big deal." If you're going to hold everybody else to a certain standard ("If you kill an innocent person, you must face the consequences."), you don't get to hold yourself to a different standard ("If I kill an innocent person, it's no big deal -- just one small mess-up."). That's not justice.

Justice isn't ONLY about putting criminals in jail; it's about holding everybody (including ourselves) accountable for our actions.

Just because it has been shown to slip up does not mean it should be abolished for just that. It's simple; if someone commits a crime that is incredibly unethical or immoral as judged by the society of the offending individual that is considered worthy of death, and there is sufficient evidence to show that said individual did commit the crime, kill them. Voila. Done. Punishment served. Don't keep them locked away and waste tax money feeding them. Kill them.

If someone commits a crime of the same caliber but can not be proven to be guilty, give them a sentence of say, 25 years, and let them battle in court. Without evidence, they shouldn't be killed because they haven't been proven to have committed the crime, only suspected.

And I don't believe criminals, once convicted, should maintain the rights of a freed man. Once they committed and were held accountable for a crime, their punishment is prison. They shouldn't be treated like animals, but they shouldn't be treated as though they deserve anything better because of what they've done. They're people, but they've done wrong and need to atone for that. If they leave prison and do wrong again and end up back in prison, depending on the offense, kill them or put them to work in the prison doing something useful. But life imprisonment just doesn't suffice for anyone or for the budget.

[R Ev0lution]

Unfortunately, that's not justice. That's called "poor police work."

Here's the thing: murder isn't okay. This is why we pay good money to detectives and police officers who are trained to track down murderers -- because it is a big deal, and we make it a big deal. If we didn't think it was a big deal, then we wouldn't bother paying our homicide detectives and we wouldn't bother paying prosecutors and judges to make sure suspects are tried and we wouldn't build expensive-ass prisons to put murderers in jail. When somebody kills an innocent person, we, as a society, demand justice.

Society doesn't get to spend all that time, money, and effort hunting down murderers and enforcing justice (as you put it, "making a big deal out of it"), and then turn around when we ourselves kill an innocent person and say "Oh, far worse has has been done. It's one small mess-up. It's no big deal." If you're going to hold everybody else to a certain standard ("If you kill an innocent person, you must face the consequences."), you don't get to hold yourself to a different standard ("If I kill an innocent person, it's no big deal -- just one small mess-up."). That's not justice.

Justice isn't ONLY about putting criminals in jail; it's about holding everybody (including ourselves) accountable for our actions.

Just because it has been shown to slip up does not mean it should be abolished for just that. It's simple; if someone commits a crime that is incredibly unethical or immoral as judged by the society of the offending individual that is considered worthy of death, and there is sufficient evidence to show that said individual did commit the crime, kill them. Voila. Done. Punishment served. Don't keep them locked away and waste tax money feeding them. Kill them.

That was NOT my point at all. My point was that, sometimes, people are initially thought to be guilty in a court of law, and, over time, witnesses and detectives step forward admitting that their testimonies/evidence may have been biased and/or tainted and/or incomplete. How do we justify and account for the fact that, sometimes, our justice system executes the wrong person for a crime? Because, again, awkwardly shrugging our shoulders and saying "No big deal" is both a hypocritical and unjust response.

By the way, ask any prosecutor, defense-attorney, judge, or detective if the process of establishing guilt is as cut-and-dry as you make it sound. You'll get laughed out of the room.

If someone commits a crime of the same caliber but can not be proven to be guilty, give them a sentence of say, 25 years, and let them battle in court. Without evidence, they shouldn't be killed because they haven't been proven to have committed the crime, only suspected.

So... You would put a person in jail for 25 years without bothering to find any evidence of guilt?

And I don't believe criminals, once convicted, should maintain the rights of a freed man. Once they committed and were held accountable for a crime, their punishment is prison. They shouldn't be treated like animals, but they shouldn't be treated as though they deserve anything better because of what they've done. They're people, but they've done wrong and need to atone for that. If they leave prison and do wrong again and end up back in prison, depending on the offense, kill them or put them to work in the prison doing something useful. But life imprisonment just doesn't suffice for anyone or for the budget.

Not sure if you realize this, but, even with all the money we put into our prison system, jail is not fun or comfortable for the average convict. I don't know how or where you're getting this fantasy-illusion about the pampered prisoner, but it's a myth. Seriously.

[Souseiseki]

It should be abolished, as it's a waste of money. A paradox, I know, but considering the legal costs of the decades of appeals made before the execution, as well as the high costs of maintaining execution equipment, it is cheaper just to imprison them for life.

yo dawg i saw you posting so i posted a post

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411625 ... enalty.pdf

We find that both the filing of a death notice and the imposition of a death sentence added significantly to the cost of a case. For the average case, a death notice adds $670,000 in costs over the duration of a case. A death sentence adds an additional $1.2 million in processing costs. Thus the average total cost for a single death sentence is about $1.9 million over and above the cost of a similar case with no death penalty sought.

About 70% of the added cost of a death notice case occurs during the trial phase. These additional costs are due to a longer pre-trial period, a longer and more intensive voir dire process, longer trials, more time spent by more attorneys preparing cases, and an expensive penalty phase trial that does not occur at all in non-death penalty cases. In addition, death notice casesare more likely to incur costs during the appellate phase even if there is no death sentence.

http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/ ... ENALTY.pdf

We currently have a dysfunctional system. The lapse of time from sentence of death to execution averages over two decades in California. Just to keep cases moving at this snail’s pace, we spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money each year: by conservative estimates, well over one hundred million dollars annually. The families of murder victims are cruelly deluded into believing that justice will be delivered with finality during their lifetimes. Those condemned to death in violation of law must wait years until the courts determine they are entitled to a new trial or penalty hearing. The strain placed by these cases on our justice system, in terms of the time and attention taken away from other business that the courts must conduct for our citizens, is heavy. To reduce the average lapse of time from sentence to execution by half, to the national average of 12 years, we will have to spend nearly twice what we are spending now.

---------------------------

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms recommended in Part A ($232.7 million per year), a system in which significant narrowing of special circumstances has been implemented ($130 million per year), and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million).

[Unilisia]

Just because it has been shown to slip up does not mean it should be abolished for just that. It's simple; if someone commits a crime that is incredibly unethical or immoral as judged by the society of the offending individual that is considered worthy of death, and there is sufficient evidence to show that said individual did commit the crime, kill them. Voila. Done. Punishment served. Don't keep them locked away and waste tax money feeding them. Kill them.

That was NOT my the point. My point was that, sometimes, people are initially thought to be guilty in a court of law, and, over time, witnesses and detectives step forward admitting that their testimonies/evidence may have been biased and/or tainted and/or incomplete. How do we justify and account for the fact that, sometimes, our justice system executes the wrong person for a crime? Because, again, awkwardly shrugging our shoulders and saying "No big deal" is both a hypocritical and unjust response.

By the way, ask any prosecutor, defense-attorney, judge, or detective if the process of establishing guilt is "simple." You'll get laughed out of the room.

If someone commits a crime of the same caliber but can not be proven to be guilty, give them a sentence of say, 25 years, and let them battle in court. Without evidence, they shouldn't be killed because they haven't been proven to have committed the crime, only suspected.

So... You would put a person in jail for 25 years without bothering to find any evidence of guilt?

And I don't believe criminals, once convicted, should maintain the rights of a freed man. Once they committed and were held accountable for a crime, their punishment is prison. They shouldn't be treated like animals, but they shouldn't be treated as though they deserve anything better because of what they've done. They're people, but they've done wrong and need to atone for that. If they leave prison and do wrong again and end up back in prison, depending on the offense, kill them or put them to work in the prison doing something useful. But life imprisonment just doesn't suffice for anyone or for the budget.

Not sure if you realize this, but, even with all the money we put into our prison system, jail is not fun or comfortable for the average convict. I don't know how or where you're getting this fantasy-illusion about the pampered prisoner, but it's a myth. Seriously.

I'm not sure where you're getting the conclusion that I think prisoners are pampered. And dodging what I say in my posts isn't proper debate, and I'm not going to sit around and argue with you.

I find the death penalty necessary, you don't. Simple as that. I don't see your counterpoints as anything serious in the regard, maybe it's just my personal opinion on them, but I see the death penalty as doing more good than harm.

[Safed]

Just because it has been shown to slip up does not mean it should be abolished for just that. It's simple; if someone commits a crime that is incredibly unethical or immoral as judged by the society of the offending individual that is considered worthy of death, and there is sufficient evidence to show that said individual did commit the crime, kill them. Voila. Done. Punishment served. Don't keep them locked away and waste tax money feeding them. Kill them.

You do realise the US spends more on each execution than on each prisoner serving life?

[Souseiseki]

If someone is executed for a crime that people think that person did, and it is discovered that they were wrong later and get the actual person who committed the crime, it's one small mess up.

wait what? one small mess up? seriously? you're aware that death is kinda a "big" thing, right?

Just because it has been shown to slip up does not mean it should be abolished for just that

i dunno if your completely optional and demonstrably more expensive system kills innocent people (N.B. death is a "big thing" (tm) then you should probably get rid of it

[Unilisia]

You do realise the US spends more on each execution than on each prisoner serving life?

You do realize that it shouldn't need to spend that much money when there are easier ways to dispose of criminals, right?

[Unilisia]

If someone is executed for a crime that people think that person did, and it is discovered that they were wrong later and get the actual person who committed the crime, it's one small mess up.

wait what? one small mess up? seriously? you're aware that death is kinda a "big" thing, right?

Just because it has been shown to slip up does not mean it should be abolished for just that

i dunno if your completely optional and demonstrably more expensive system kills innocent people (N.B. death is a "big thing" (tm) then you should probably get rid of it

I don't consider death to be big deal when it's someone who has, up to that point, been considered a criminal deserving of death.

[Safed]

You do realise the US spends more on each execution than on each prisoner serving life?

You do realize that it shouldn't need to spend that much money when there are easier ways to dispose of criminals, right?

Yes like life in prison

[Unilisia]

You do realize that it shouldn't need to spend that much money when there are easier ways to dispose of criminals, right?

Yes like life in prison

No, like a bullet into the brain.

[Safed]

Yes like life in prison

No, like a bullet into the brain.

Then, when they are later shown to be innocent? Then what do you do?

At the end of the day the justice system is fallible so it shouldn't deal absolute punishments from which there is no return. Most of the cost of the death penalty is the legal and investigation fees. Are you suggesting to save that you should be less thorough?

[Souseiseki]

wait what? one small mess up? seriously? you're aware that death is kinda a "big" thing, right?



i dunno if your completely optional and demonstrably more expensive system kills innocent people (N.B. death is a "big thing" (tm) then you should probably get rid of it

I don't consider death to be big deal when it's someone who has, up to that point, been considered a criminal deserving of death.

You don't think the part where it turns out they actually aren't/weren't is kinda important?