Death Penalty: For or Against?

It's a complicated issue with more sides than two. What's your opinion?



My opinion (not that anyone cares): I am completely against the death penalty. I believe that not only is it morally wrong, it is inherently flawed and also impractical. It does not deter crime. It is used indiscriminately. Crimes with white victims are more likely to get death than those with non-white victims. Blacks and poor individuals are more likely to get death. . . . I could go on. I won't. I'll shut up and let y'all post your opinions. (that is, if anyone cares.)

Ummm...ok...Just going to tell you that I'm going to be watching this thread closely. Any moves towards flaming or some extremely intense argument and it's locked. Just saying...Keep it civil.

My best friend was raped by her father when she was six. She had the courage to bring it to court and testify against him when separated by nothing more than a thin screen and maybe 20 feet. He got 3 years in jail, got out, and tried to kill her twice before she moved to where she is now for her own safety. Her older sister was raped before her, and is now permanently institutionalized with schizophrenia. My friend is extremely depressive, often socially inhibited, sometimes extremely paranoid, and suicidal.

Sometimes I really do believe in the death penalty.

Schrödinger wrote:

The Mighty Fluffball wrote:My best friend was raped by her father when she was six. She had the courage to bring it to court and testify against him when separated by nothing more than a thin screen and maybe 20 feet. He got 3 years in jail, got out, and tried to kill her twice before she moved to where she is now for her own safety. Her older sister was raped before her, and is now permanently institutionalized with schizophrenia. My friend is extremely depressive, often socially inhibited, sometimes extremely paranoid, and suicidal.

Sometimes I really do believe in the death penalty.

Though I won't argue that the mentioned rapist got off light, how would the death penalty do anything for anyone? Wouldn't life in jail get the same effects?

The prisoner cannot escape if he's dead. It's really hard to escape death, so rather than worry about them escaping, just kill them.

It's a possibility, and it has happened. Not every day, but there are a few times where people escape.

I always try to keep a civil tone, Gunneh.

Anyways. . . that's more replies than I thought I would get in such a short amount of time.

It's fine to defend your viewpoints. But attacking people and getting on the offensive, especially if it gets way out of hand just isn't accepted anywhere I know of. Thank you, Gunneh. <3

I would be so pissed if the guy that raped me got off after 3 years if that were me, Fluffball. And then for him to come after her afterward? God... That's horrifying. Just terrible.

I believe in the death penalty. I'm not a religious person, so that isn't something that sways my view. I don't think we're "playing God" or anything. (If that were the case, we might as well live without technology and modern medicine too.) However...

The Bible requires the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes, including practicing evil sourcery, adultery, homosexual behavior, doing work on Saturday and murder. It even calls for some criminals (e.g. prostitutes who are the daughters of priests) to be tortured to death by being burned alive. Most Christians, with the exception of those in the Reconstructionist movement, feel that many of these grounds for the death penalty no longer apply to Christian societies. However, Bible passages are still used to promote the retention of capital punishment for murderers. A few conservative Christians advocate that homosexuals also be executed.

Personally, if I broke the law and murdered someone, I'd rather serve time in jail than be killed. I believe that's the mentality of a lot of criminals. So why should we give someone who has raped and murdered someone the lesser of the two?

As for the penal system accidentally executing an innocent person, I must point out that in this imperfect world, nothing that is worth having comes without risk. After all, far, far more innocent lives have been taken by convicted murderers than the supposedly 23 innocents mistakenly executed this century. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty in this country has ever executed even ONE innocent in the past century! Also consider that thousands of American citizens are murdered each year by released and paroled criminals. These are the serious flaws in life sentences that abolitionists prefer to trivialize to nonexistence. There is no doubt whatsoever that keeping murderers alive is far, far more dangerous to innocents than putting them to death.

How, exactly, is it more dangerous?
If a criminal has to pick between a life sentence and the death penalty, you might be surprised at some of their choices. While death might seem like the more obvious of the two, a more primal fear, you're not actually realizing how torturous prison life - especially the maximum security, isolated type that most people at risk for the death penalty would likely receive - really is.

The reason the death penalty numbers for wrongful executions are so low is because we don't really use the death penalty all that often. 40 is a lot of people to have wrongfully killed out of the few hundred we've done. And what? 23? Try 39 with significant evidence at the very least.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/deathpenalty/executinginnocent/

I am firmly against the death penalty; however if we are to live in a society where the death penalty exists (being that I don't control the government, of course *or do I*evil laugh*), then the capital punishment system ought ought to be executed (ha ha! Sorry bad pun ) in a consistent and fair manner. Meaning that those who commit the most heinous crimes, are duly convicted and sentenced to death for them, and can be proved to have committed them beyond virtually any doubt (except stupid doubts) are the ones who should be executed and no one else.

Also, being a "Christian" (cringes at the term, because so often to say that suddenly makes everyone assume dozens of things about my beliefs which are usually NOT true!), I believe that the Law (this is where all the death penalty advocates get their arguments from in the Bible) was part of the Mosaic Covenant, which most people know better as the Ten Commandments. Any scholar will tell you that the Mosaic Covenant was a conditional covenant (a covenant is a formal agreement between two parties) in which God promised to bless and prosper the Israelites PROVIDED that the Israelites kept God's Law, which was included in the Pentateuch; however if the Israelites didn't keep their end of the bargain, death was the punishment (see all the calls for death). However, they failed miserably and God's promises were 'voided' (if you look at it from a legal perspective) so he had to use the 'death' clause.

Christian theologians will tell you that when Jesus died on the cross (obviously assuming that this is true, which it isn't for those who don't believe in this), he took the place of Israel, which was supposed to be executed. In doing this, he fulfilled the terms of the Mosaic Covenant and none of its provisions are 'legally' valid.

ANYWAYS, the whole point of this long spiel is just to say that because of this, all the death penalties called for cannot technically be called for, at least not on the authority of the Bible. They could be called for on someone's personal beliefs, I suppose, but you really can't call upon them based upon Christianity if you believe what was stated above. Then again, if you DON'T believe what is stated above then none of this applies!

Here's a verse I often refer to when asked about the death penalty:



The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
John 8:3-7

I really don't believe the death penalty is right. Why? Because humans are flawed.

Just because there is no "evidence" that innocents have suffered the death penalty, it doesn't mean that innocents haven't been wrongfully murdered for a crime they didn't commit.

People lie for a multitude of reasons, and memory is a very shaky thing. Witnesses aren't really very credible. Even people who are victims aren't credible for those very reasons.

A woman who is raped may not have gotten a good look at her accuser, or the event could have been traumatic enough to skew her memory of the attacker. She may finger the wrong man in a line-up. A woman could claim to have been raped, or she ((or a man)) could claim that someone tried to murder her when she really only wanted revenge against someone for some reason.

Sometimes the evidence may point to one person, when they had absolutely nothing more to do with the event than being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't think that anyone has the right to decide who should live and who should die. It's a ridiculous assumption that the judicial system is so flawless that they're never wrong. Humans are not perfect enough to presume to hold such power.

I think no one has the right to decide who lives and who dies. I have this bumper sticker that says "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" I believe we are all inherently flawed (not inherently EVIL, but inherently FLAWED), and therefore we have no right to demand death of anyone. But of course, that's my own opinion.

Hehe. Bumper stickers.
I have a Cthulhu fish.

That's a great bumper sticker. I always like reading bumper stickers, especially if they're about things that make you think.

I agree. I don't think humans are any more inherently evil than a predatory animal. Technically... we are animals, but that's another discussion. I believe that our inherent flaws are what people often mistake for evil, however ridiculous that may be.

Animal: Derives from Latin "animus" which means "soul". Animal then is "of the soul, possessing a soul, related to a soul".

I believe if you kill someone intentionally for any reason, you should be killed back. I also believe that if you molest a child numerous times, or rape a child once, you should be killed.

I don't care how flawed it is, I don't care what anyone else says. No one gives you the right to kill someone, and NO ONE, I mean NO ONE should be allowed to live after committing horrible crimes to children.

You've contradicted yourself, Lucian.

You say that no one has the right to kill someone, but you think that the government has that right? It's hypocritical at best.

Added to that is the possibility of error. It's a sticky problem.

So there has been some talk in this thread about Prison life, how being in a SHU is etc. etc.

Let me enlighten all of you.



First, prison is hell! Solitary housing is the deepest darkest part of hell you can go to. I spent 18 months in the SHU. I know how that is. All MaxSec prisons are considered Secure Housing Units. So I do know how it is in a MaxSec prison.

Second, to quiet all of the talk of innocents- Everyone is prison is innocent. Right? Just ask them. They didn't do shit wrong.

So about the death penalty.

Having lived in prison, having been through that trial, I believe the death penalty is allowing them all to get off easy. Let them spend the rest of their life in a 6 x 9 cell. Give them meager food, make them work at a work camp of some sort, make them try to pay their debt back to society. Than let them die. Old, cold, and alone. By themselves. That's a worst death than staring down the barrels of a firing squad or having needles stuck into your arm so you can go to sleep before your heart stops.

BUT! Child rapists or rapists in general. Well... Let them out to the general population. Let them fight for their lives in the rec yard. If they live than they get to fight another day. If they don't, well, tough shit. Even in prisons, Rapists are the lowest on the totem pole. They are put in Protective Housing (that's called the Moe's Homes on the inside). Even snitches, who are hated by all, can walk the rec yard with the general population. But not rapists. They get stuck up, beat, than killed.

I know this may seem like I have contradicted my beliefs but in my view I haven't. Rapists, no matter who or what they rape, are scum. They are the lowest form of life on this planet. I don't care who you are. If you do this, you deserve to meet your maker a hell of a lot sooner than you planned. Simple enough.

I don't feel like you contradicted yourself. It's better in your mind to allow them to live in fear of death in some torturous and unexpected way than to breathe a sigh of relief because they know exactly when and how it will happen.

Yeah, I can see your point Kail, and that does make sense. I think in order for me to be truly passionate on this subject for debate, I'd have to have a better understanding of both sides of the argument.

Now, boys and girls, don't kill anyone... or we'll kill you.











Oh yeah, and do as I say, not as I do.

Death solves nothing. If a criminal never repents his actions during his life sentence, so be it. At least he's there not hurting anyone. Plus, the death penalty is actually now more costly to the average taxpayer than life imprisonment. So, it's neither morally correct nor is it financially sound.

Caleb you can't tell me that it is less of a financial burden to off someone with a bullet than to let them live a life time in prison. I'm not sure of the cost of lethal injection but a bullet at most costs a buck. Thats all you need. You don't need to bury them, you don't need to have a ceremony. Just burn the bastards.

That is of course only for child predators.

Kail DeWraith wrote:Caleb you can't tell me that it is less of a financial burden to off someone with a bullet than to let them live a life time in prison. I'm not sure of the cost of lethal injection but a bullet at most costs a buck. Thats all you need. You don't need to bury them, you don't need to have a ceremony. Just burn the bastards.

That is of course only for child predators.

No, a bullet doesn't cost much, you're right. But I'm talking in realistic terms of what actually happens here. Not about what-if's. I'm not saying I have compassion for these people, though many of them do the things they do because of the conditioning of modern society or mental problems, but having to spend a lifetime constantly reminded of what a horrible thing you've done sounds a Hell of a lot more painful than a quick death. More gratifying too.

Besides, we're the only first world nation that still enforces the death penalty. Seems kind of ridiculous to me. And old-fashioned. This isn't the Wild West anymore. We're smarter and we live in much more complicated times.

since a certain WW2 we don't have death penalties anymore. ;|

(And luckily will probably never have.. assuming there is no zombie apocalypse in the making )

The death penalty costs more because of the following:

Beefed up security
---> Guards
---> Video monitoring equipment
---> Electric fences, etc.
---> Police to monitor demonstrators during execution, trial, etc.

Legal appeals
---> Costs for court
---> And personnel
---> Also, many death row inmates have public defenders, so that costs gov't money, too
---> Paper
---> Staples
---> Binders
---> More office stuff.
---> Average of 12 years in time (lots of paychecks from the gov't pocket)
---> Expert witnesses, equipment, exhibits. (in addition)

There's probably more, but I'm lazy.

Not only is the system inefficient, it is tainted by populist politics and utterly suspect.

District attorneys do not get in the game they are in because it is well-compensated. They get into it for political purposes. There are a variety of issues involved in this, but I think neither a judge seeking a higher bench nor an attorney who doesn't want to lose a case, or wants to seek the death penalty to drum up electoral support for a future run for congress, is necessarily an infallible system.

And at the end of the day, our system, once upon a time at least, prefers to let guilty people go rather than jail the innocent. I think there are disadvantages to that belief, of course, and it seems so callous when applied to personal tragedy and people are hurting emotionally. But when looked at from a distance, the system itself seems callous and uncaring, and more than a little self-serving for the people who are in a position to decide, who can find political gain for advocating death. They profit by the death when it comes to popularity with the electorate, particularly in states like Texas. It's no surprise, then, that they have such a high incidence of the death penalty (and lots of rulings overturned by federal courts when the appeals finally get there.)

After all, prosecutors who lose cases generally don't get elected to higher offices. The prosecutors know this, and once they're in the fight, it doesn't matter what evidence crops up, they generally don't withdraw the case. See Nifong, the guy who prosecuted the Duke case.

I cannot countenance people with ulterior motives being the ones to decide when to use the death-penalty, or the idea that politics would factor into it, and yet that is precisely how the death penalty is used; an extra-expensive, relatively prejudicial method of lynching a criminal with popular acclaim for an ambitious prosecuting attorney with political aspirations.

Kail and me seem to be coming from the same page. I don't know if that's a good thing or not....But I agree with his views having done some time myself. Rapist, I believe, should not be executed and left to die in some horrible pornographic way in their cells or in the yard. Like Kail said they are the lowest there and are treated accordingly. Killers on the other hands, your run of the mill psycho tend to be left into their own corners. Why? Because there has been several documented occurrences where the other inmates who tired to kill them got their throats ripped out. Because well they are psychos. They are the people I believe should be put to an end. Simply because they are far beyond any hope of reforming and paying any debt to society. As for the run of the mill, murderer who kill for money, greed or jealousy. I say let them sweat it out in their cells and the rec yard.

I also have to agree with Heyseuss, there is a problem with today's system which is more concerned with winning a case than finding out the truth. Which of course does send innocent people to their deaths. Yes there has been documented case of this. Had a new report about it on CNN no more than 3 years ago if I remember correctly. This goes to both sides, the defense no matter how obvious it is that their client is guilty try to find some loophole to win. I'm not saying all of them do this, I'm saying the fact that even a few do can cost lives and needs to be rectified.

I agree with Heyseus. (Did I spell that right?)

I recently read a book which held that being seen as 'soft on criminals', i.e. opposing or not using the death penalty, is often the worst blow a judge or DA or sheriff can take in an election, particularly in the South and Southwest.

And also, to the guy who posted last (I'm sorry, I can't remember your username), I just have to say I don't think anyone is worthless enough to be thrown away, and no one deserves to have their life taken from them. Yes, that includes the victims of crime. It also includes the murderers and rapists.

I'm not totally positive. I mean, why should we kill someone to show people in society that killing is wrong? But on the other hand, I know if I was in the situation where I or someone in my family was wronged, then I know it'd be a different story.

I'm...on the fence, I guess you could say?