The Death Penalty

[Safed]

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.

Then the problem lies in them being considered deserving of death.

[Unilisia]

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?

If they were 'proven' guilty then, who's to know that new evidence will come up in the future and prove them innocent? If they're in prison for life, they could already be dead by that point.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Something uncivilised countries do.

[Souseiseki]

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

If they were 'proven' guilty then, who's to know that new evidence will come up in the future and prove them innocent? If they're in prison for life, they could already be dead by that point.

Yep, but if they weren't dead you could release them/compensate them! Unlike death, famously hard to stop and reverse.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Yes, there should be a death penalty for the worst of society's members. I vote option 2.

[Malland]

If they are proven guilty, then yeah just gut them, and throw them in a pile

Publicized execution sounds good too

We are living in a huggie world that gives cold blood serial killers soft sentence in hope that they will somehow turn normal, the laws we have is a revolving door, criminals come in bad, walk out with zero repentance. We need some gulags, and more lethal injection to save taxpayer money.

If you think death penalty is for uncivilised countries, think from victim perspective, and you will think a country without death penalty is the uncivilised and senseless one.

[Enfaru]

No human life is worth another. Is my motto for this particular subject. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth... leaves us as no better than the people who did it in the first place. Also, how productive is a death? Does this extra death contribute anything to society except self absorbed gratification? Nope.

Prison, for life, make them work. If they wish to commit suicide, then let them, otherwise they should be given the opportunity to work hard and give to the society that they took from. Of course, this solution is not cheap (cheaper than the death penalty though) but it does make us morally superior and there might be a profit to etch out of it to boot. I'll be the first to admit that they should be made to work hard for what they get but taking another life? When there is a chance that they 'could' be innocent? nuh uh.

We've seen this before...

Judge: "We have a unanimous verdict you are absolutely guilty...hang"
Criminal: *hangs*
---ten years later---
Prosecution: Uh...sorry...we messed up... that evidence that clinched the verdict the DNA evidence? yeah it was contaminated and it was actually this guy... *points to guy running about in a field after imaginary bunnies*
Judge: "Exactly how did this happen?"
Prosecution: "Oh our technology and methodology was faulty, it has been much improved since and it won't happen again."
Judge: "Didn't you say that five years ago?"

...and it has happened and continues to happen while the death penalty is in force. The chinese have it down to a tee though. "You're not being hung for your crimes, you're being hung to scare of others that might commit a crime...and it just so happens we think you're guilty anyway...so two birds one stone?"

[Gravlen]

Now, I can't help but wonder..."Why?" Breivik is obviously guilty, with so many eyewitnesses who have given direct accounts of his actions in court.

In the specific case, there's still a question of his guilt since the question of whether or not he's sane or insane remains unanswered. If he's found to be insane, he's not guilty in the eyes of the law and will not be sentenced to prison (but be given treatment instead). Just goes to show that your shining example of obvious guilt... isn't.

In general, it has been shown time and time again that eyewitnesses are unreliable. It's not that they necessarily lie about what they've observed (though that happens too, sometimes under pressure from the authorities), but many times they they misremember, "fill in the blanks", or speak based on assumptions.

There's no question at all that both men are guilty, so why not just give them a single trial and to the gallows with them? Why is there a need to build up such unnecessary costs? Why must we continue to refrain from what is seen by many as a just punishment for a capital offence for which there is an utterly overwhelming amount of evidence?

Because we like this thing called "the rule of law", and because we acknowledge that miscarriages of justice may happen.

Are such cases so similar to cases for which false findings or a lack of adequate evidence lead to the execution of an innocent person, that we must remain stagnate and grant murderers such as Breivik and Hasan amnesty through life sentences?

A life sentence is in no way an "amnesty".

And let's look at some key findings from the Innocence project:

• Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses).
• Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct.
• False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 27 percent of cases. 28 of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

By the way, Breivik's sentence won't even be a life sentence. It'll be 21 years, in accordance to Norwegian law, according to numerous articles published in April.

If he's sentenced, it'll most likely be to 21 years but with the possibility of indefinite preventative detention afterwards if he's still deemed to be a danger to the public. So it can actually be a life sentence.

[R Ev0lution]

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.


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



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.

Well, forgive me for saying this, but I hope that you never become a detective, prosecutor, law professor, or judge in your entire life.

First, because I haven't dodged anything in your posts. I've addressed each post directly, critiquing what you say in a direct manner while offering counterpoints.
YOU: It's simple. You can do it like this.
ME: It's not that simple. Examples: Guilty verdicts will reveal themselves to be questionable in the future; also, nobody who's actually involved with the process of a criminal investigation/trial will tell you it's simple.
YOU: Put people in prison for 25 years if you can't prove they're guilty.
ME: [Requests clarification]
YOU: Prisoners shouldn't have the same rights as free people.
ME: It's pretty shitty in prison; I don't think they have the same rights.

I'd say I did a perfectly good job of addressing your posts.

Secondly, because you're the one dodging my posts. By avoiding my question of "If execution is a just punishment for killing innocent people, how do we justify the fact that, sometimes, we kill innocent people, too?". So far, all I've seen out of you is "No big deal" and "Far worse atrocities have been committed," which I've called out as an unfair and unequal double-standard. I'm shocked that anybody out there can call that "justice" with a straight face.

Finally, because it's obvious from what you say that your understanding of the concept of "justice" is inconsistent and broken.

[Sixxar Isles]

A criminal on death row has a chance to prepare his death, make a will, and make his last statements, etc. while some victims can never do it. There are many other crimes where people are injured by stabbing, rape, theft, etc. To some degree at least, the victims right to freedom and pursuit of happiness is violated.

When the assailant is apprehended and charged, he has the power of the judicial process who protects his constitutional rights. What about the victim? The assailant may have compassion from investigating officers, families and friends. Furthermore, the criminal may have organized campaigns of propaganda to build sympathy for him as if he is the one who has been sinned against. These false claims are publicized, for no reason, hence, protecting the criminal .

[R Ev0lution]

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?

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.

Apparently, she does, indeed, want us to be less thorough.

[Gravlen]

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.

Guilty until proven innocent is a horrible perversion of justice.

[The Dalekss]

if the convicts are made to work to death I am ok with it. Otherwise it's just bad

[Al Amfel]

Most people have a natural fear of death- its a trait man have to think about what will happen before we act. If we don’t think about it consciously, we will think about it unconsciously. Think- if every murderer who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate would be very low because no one likes to die. We cannot do this, but if the Justice system can make it more swift and severe, we could change the laws to make capital punishment faster and make appeals a shorter process. The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of potential victims who are at stake.

[Keronians]

The death penalty cannot be justified, at any level.

It is more costly than a life sentence, so, no, to all the people who say that it wastes taxpayer money. To those who think, well, why don't we just cut the appeals process?, that would many more innocents to the chopping block.

Moving on to the point touched upon earlier, innocents are always, regardless of which country we are talking about, killed. That cannot be justified.

Nobody has the right to take another's life. This applies to the State as well.

Lastly, the main purpose of it, deterrence, has been proven to not work.

[R Ev0lution]

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

If they were 'proven' guilty then, who's to know that new evidence will come up in the future and prove them innocent? If they're in prison for life, they could already be dead by that point.

Perfect logic.

"If somebody has cancer, why bother trying to treat them? For all we know, it could be a waste of time and money, because there's a chance it might not work!"

[Unilisia]

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?

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.

Apparently, she does, indeed, want us to be less thorough.

If they've been convicted, put them in. That's the part I forgot to add. Don't just put anyone in jail for 25 years, that's fucking ridiculous.

[Northern Dominus]

As a measure of incapacitation, the death penalty is undeniably effective. Ending the life of a serial murderer will most definetly prevent them from killing again. However, as a method of incapacitation it's expensive, and it has to be given the layers of fail-safes and the legal system in this nation. A more compelling and effective system might be the construction of more "Administrative Maximum" facilities like the one on Florence, Colorado to house the worst of the worst offenders. In the long run it would be less costly.

However, the argument against the death penalty is compelling because it is an unjust means of punishment. However it is not unjust for the convicted, it is unjust for society, especially the survivors of murder and terrorism. The ancient Babylonians knew this when writing the Code of the Hammurabi, that is why their methods of punishment revolved around Lex Talsonis (eye for an eye).

To apply this concept to modern capitol punishment let's take Denis Rader aka. "The BTK Killer" as an example.

Denis Rader confessed to the murder of at least 10 people in Sedgewick County, Kansas. His modus operandi included blindfolding and restricting his victims before asphyxiating them either with a plastic bad, by hanging, with some sort of garotte, or even his own hands.
Now the code of the Hammurabi would dictate that if Rader (who is in prison today after confessing) were to be executed, it would have to be done so in the same fashion in order to satisfy the need for natural justice. That would mean he would be restrained and asphyxiated via strangulation in some fashion.

While I'm sure a few posters on here would giggle with glee at the thought of executing murderers and terrorists in the same exact fashion that they themselves took the lives of others, I don't. To do that would be to start a backslide with an endpoint where we're once again cutting the hands off of shoplifters automatically without considering motive or circumstance.

Ergo, the death penalty is unjust for victims and survivors, hence it is unjust entirely. To make it just would set all sorts of bad precedent and begin a devolution of modern law.

[R Ev0lution]

Apparently, she does, indeed, want us to be less thorough.

If they've been convicted, put them in. That's the part I forgot to add. Don't just put anyone in jail for 25 years, that's fucking ridiculous.

Oh, like how it's ridiculous to execute people for killing innocent civilians, and then, when we ourselves kill innocent civilians, turn around and say "It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal"?

[Vistulange]

I support the death penalty. I live in a country where terrorism is rampant (Turkey) and we have the leader of the PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) sitting in a 5-star hotel, er, prison. We have to hang him. Mass murderers and rapists should also be subject to it.

[Unilisia]

If they've been convicted, put them in. That's the part I forgot to add. Don't just put anyone in jail for 25 years, that's fucking ridiculous.

Oh, like how it's ridiculous to execute people for killing innocent civilians, and then, when we ourselves kill innocent civilians, turn around and say "It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal"?

It's impossible to argue with someone who doesn't see the finer points of revising the prison system.

[Northern Dominus]

I support the death penalty. I live in a country where terrorism is rampant (Turkey) and we have the leader of the PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) sitting in a 5-star hotel, er, prison. We have to hang him. Mass murderers and rapists should also be subject to it.

Okay. So say modern law gets pushed aside and they go straight to the head of the line without so much as a re-trial or hearing. How would they be executed then? What method? Public or private viewing?

[Malland]

The death penalty cannot be justified, at any level.

It is more costly than a life sentence, so, no, to all the people who say that it wastes taxpayer money. To those who think, well, why don't we just cut the appeals process?, that would many more innocents to the chopping block.

Moving on to the point touched upon earlier, innocents are always, regardless of which country we are talking about, killed. That cannot be justified.

Nobody has the right to take another's life. This applies to the State as well.

Lastly, the main purpose of it, deterrence, has been proven to not work.

So someone can walk into child care and pour petrol on the kids and set them alight without getting a penalty?

Better ask yourself

You can respect the life of deranged criminals as much as you want, but just remember, they will not return the favor when they see you.

[Northern Dominus]

Oh, like how it's ridiculous to execute people for killing innocent civilians, and then, when we ourselves kill innocent civilians, turn around and say "It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal"?

It's impossible to argue with someone who doesn't see the finer points of revising the prison system.

Which in and of itself is a problem. As it stands incarceration in even short-term jail cells can constitute cruel and unusual punishment considering that prison violence is a growing concern and the "tough on crime" mentality means that more and more non-violent offenders are being locked up and exposed to that level of violence.

[Enfaru]

The death penalty cannot be justified, at any level.

It is more costly than a life sentence, so, no, to all the people who say that it wastes taxpayer money. To those who think, well, why don't we just cut the appeals process?, that would many more innocents to the chopping block.

Moving on to the point touched upon earlier, innocents are always, regardless of which country we are talking about, killed. That cannot be justified.

Nobody has the right to take another's life. This applies to the State as well.

Lastly, the main purpose of it, deterrence, has been proven to not work.

So someone can walk into child care and pour petrol on the kids and set them alight without getting a penalty?

Better ask yourself

You can respect the life of deranged criminals as much as you want, but just remember, they will not return the favor when they see you.

There are other penalties, such as life imprisonment. One life isn't worth another.