posted
I've decided to change my mind on a political subject that I used to be immoveable on. I no longer agree with the death penalty, or, I no longer feel that it's morally correct, or useful to kill someone who has gruesomely murdered another.
I do feel it's correct for those people to be moved into special maximum security prisons in Alaska and forced to spend their days out performing hard labor for 15-18 hours a day. I think these types of people need to spend their days thinking about their crimes and the effect it's had on their lives and on the lives they effected through their gruesome crimes.
And when they die, then his/her eternal existence is in God's hands.
The sad thing is that this scenario doesn't exist. So while I don't support the death penalty per se, I'm not going to picket executions either.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strangely enough.. A hatrack thread from 1-2 years ago, some thought and ... um.. Bill O'Reilly.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could be comfortable with replacing the death penalty with some cruel and unusual punishment. But, as you say, that ain't happening. So I'm pretty comfortable with the death penalty as well.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I'm not completely comfortable with the death penalty is because whenever we have discussions about it in school people are so eager to say, "He kills someone he needs to die," without even considering what the circumstances are. We talk about what if the person was brainwashed to think that what they were doing was the right thing to do, and all people can say is, "They should still have known that killing is wrong." Keep in mind I'm talking about high school students, but still. They act as though it doesn't even require any thought, no discussion, just kill the person. It just makes me uneasy that if these are the people who will someday be in charge of making those decisions, innocent people will be put to death because the trials weren't done carefully and the judge was too quick to assign a death penalty.
Posts: 981 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I think there are times when it is acceptable to execute someone, I am strongly against the current use of the death penalty. There have been simply far too many cases of people being executed whom we now know are innocent. I've never been able to understand how our nation's conscience has been able to accomodate that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's always been the sticky point for me, fugu. I think in cases where there is some doubt, the death penalty should be thrown out altogether. But how do you know?
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. Which is why the death penalty should be abolished except for situations with lots of very clear video tape and lots of witnesses.
And I'd actually settle for it being abolished altogether, I'm not particularly set on seeing anyone die.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, the reason I'm okay with it is that I believe mistakes are inevitable. I don't like it when innocent people die, not at all, but I believe that more innocent people die at the hands of released or escaped murderers than due to the errors of the courts. See, I feel just as responsible for the former as the latter; we had the fella in our hands and we let him get away . How can people who oppose the death penalty live with that?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who said anything about releasing them? Of course mistakes happen, but we can at least stop them from being permanent, and only releasing people when we can find a reasonable doubt. Dead people are dead even if we find absolute proof they were innocent (which happens disturbingly regularly).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe in the death penalty. It's too easy, too simple and doesn't really deter crime. Even before I saw and read Dead Man Walking I didn't believe in it. It's interesting how when they use whatevery means of killing a person, whether it's shooting them, gas, electricity or lethal injection which is supposed to be so compassionate but really it only seems that way they'll have two buttons that are pressed at the same time so that the people pressing the button can blame the other person for the death. Killing is always wrong... no matter what. Even in self defence. Which is an extreme way of looking at things.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the biggest point I was trying to make is that those who kill deserve a fate worse than death, which is not offered right now.
If someone kills my daughter, I don't want him to die, but I want him to remember every day that his choices caused his life to suck. I want him digging holes, busting up rocks, and falling into his bed in exhaustion every night. I want him to wish he never, ever did it.
The death penalty doesn't do this right now. If anything, it can make him a martyr who dies by falling asleep.
Timothy McVeigh should be confined to a 12 by 12 cell and required to work in extreme conditions for 15 to 18 hours a day, no last meals, no interviews with Dan Rather. Just living out the rest of his life in obscurity where he'll never get out and when he dies of old age, he's nothing more than a brief on an inside news page.
This is how I believe it should be. It shouldn't be cruel and unusual. It should be strict and punishing.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All criminal penalties should be centered on rehabilitation and not revenge.
I have few issues with making murders lives forfeit to the state and making them do difficult community service and other projects for eighteen hours a day...I have a problem with inflicting pain simply for the purpose of inflicting pain.
So I agree with Pat, for the most part.
I disagree with Icarus, who seems to wish only for the most suffering possible for murderers.
I also disagree with Maccabeus, who has already made up his mind in favor of execution and now appears to be fumbling around for a validation of his foregone conclusion.
...that's my take, at any rate.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shlomo, you're right that my mind is pretty much made up; I don't know that it's appropriate to describe me as "fumbling around". I suppose it's possible that my justification is more after-the-fact than I realize; the death penalty is extremely intuitive to me.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, and if somebody killed Pat's daughters I would want them to die, before they killed Shlomo's daughters, and Mack's daughters, and my own two darling daughters for that matter.
There really are things people can do that can make them give up their rights. Their rights to liberty (if they rob or injur they should be locked up), their right to privacy (if they molest a child all thier neighbors should be told they are a child molester forever) and even their right to life (if they are guilty of murder or even many cases of rape).
This isn't a matter of revenge. This is a matter of somebody having demonstrated they're willing to abuse their freedoms. The way a free country works is we give everybody freedoms from the day they're born, and then take them away from them as they prove they can't handle that freedom. That means some people go their whole lives with all of their freedoms, and it means others get all of their freedoms taken away at a very early age.
As for the factor of killed innocents--that's a circular arguement that can be enticing, but really can't be taken too far. My wife's doctor misdiagnosed her pretty badly once. Their incorrect treatment ended up in her having to have open heart surgery.
Those doctors were ignorant, and I will hate them forever.
But that doesn't mean that nobody should ever get the treatment they perscribed her. There are still cases where that treatment is correct and appropriate.
What needs to be fixed isn't the treatment so much as their criterea for making their diagnosis.
So it is with the death penalty. If it's a good idea, it's a good idea. If you're afraid it will be used on innocents, then we need to fix the system that decides guilt or innocence. That does not change the inherent virtues of the death penalty.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And since our legal system is screwed up, and no one wants to fix it, I guess that pretty much throws the death penalty right out the window for a while, eh?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me rapists and child molesters are worse than murderers, yet it seems like they get less time than drug dealers. They are the ones that should be thrown in jail forever and stripped of all of their rights. An example: this case here of a man who killed a 12 year old and her mother after raping the mother. He should have never been allowed to see the light of day.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, I have read the all the earlier posts on this topic and I notice that no one mentions the suposed deterent factor which is suposed to be caused by the existence of the death penalty. Thoughts on this?
I mean there are plenty of people that I'd like to kill (usually on mondays)...but aside from the fact that it is just wrong..there is the reality that I would be caught and punished, possibly with my life.
Joking aside though: Aside from those of us who obey laws for the sake of trying to do right, don't the consequences keep us in line?
Lets say for a moment that they instituted the death penalty for speeding excessivly, or even better, DUI...I can guarentee that we all would repect the law more strickly. Why should it not be the same for murder? Though there are no numbers to measure this, because no one counts the number of murders NOT commited by the death penatly.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it was fair to characterize Maccabeus as fumbling. It may not be a sentiment you agree with, but it seemed pretty clearly set out to me.
-o-
I was being somewhat facetious. What Pat described would be considered cruel and unusual punishment if someone were to try and implement it today, and that's what I meant. I know teachers who have taught in prisons, and it is actually quite true that prisoners get resources that the rest of us don't. For instance, each of her students had a laptop. My students don't have laptops. How many adults can't afford a laptop? How many families can't afford cable TV? (And yes, I am aware that they use cable TV as a riot deterrent, not because they love criminals.) So when I said "cruel and unusual," what I meant was take away some of the luxuries they currently enjoy.
Your post makes me face the fact that I am not morally comfortable with, say, state sponsored torturing of these criminals every day, just for the heck of it.
Your post, though, puts me more firmly in the position of favoring capital punishment. For the worst murderers and torturers in society, I am not interested in rehabilitation, or in vengeance. I simply want them destroyed, like one would destroy a rabid dog.
I would be comfortable with what Pat describes, as a compromise, but that seems even less likely to happen these days.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think studies have shown it is not an effective deterrant. I guess the type of people who murder either do it in moments of irrational passion, or believe they cannot be caught, or are so dysfunctional on some level that it really doesn't affect them that way. Statistically, though, I'm pretty sure I've read that states without capital punishment do not have a higher murder rate than states with it.
-o-
Sure, Storm. I'm not opposed to revamping the system to get it right, or to having a moratorium on executions while we do this. It's not like I'm a Republican! Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So are you going to change your name, Trogdor, to reflect your new, sensitive side?
Trogdor the Scuffs-His-Feet-On-The-Carpet-And-Shocks-Younator, maybe? Trogdor the Wifflebatter? Trogdor the First-Degree-Burninator?
Trogdor the Morning-Breathinator? (meedley, meedley, meeeeee....and the Trogdor comes right at daaaaaaaaawwwwn!)
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also strongly suspect the deterrent factor is low -- many murders are either crimes of passion, or crimes by sociopaths, neither of which are often swayed by reasoned self interest.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what I've always suspected. Most premeditated murderers don't think they'll get caught and they don't care if they are caught. The Death Penalty is a waste of resources and money. You keep these guys in prison for years, they make appeals a lot, they drain resources keeping these people alive just to kill them. Preventing crime somehow would be better, but difficult. What happens to a criminal that makes them go out and commit crimes in the first place?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two Points: First: If the deterent factor is low...isn't it still worth something? I mean if it prevents the murder of innocents in even one case, then isn't the death penalty a worthy method of deterence. I agree with your point about crimes of passion, but don't we all feel like doing some wrong things in the heat of passion? And don't the consequences still keep us in check? I could scream at my girlfriend when she does something stupid, but I don't because i don't want to face the consequences. (most likly at least a week of no fun) Logic is what we use to temper our passions and determine actions. And the logic of "I will die if i do this" keeps us from indulging in many passions. Unsafe sex, jumping off cliffs to feel a rush, eating nothing but pure chocolate for a week straight...umm chocolate... And for those of us who drive, what might be the ultimate passionate respponce...ramming the jerk-off that just cuts us off becasue they can't read that they are suposed to MERGE BEFORE the point where they run out of road!!!!
Where was I? oh yes...
Second: From an economic standpoint...why should the rest of us pay for these criminal indeffinent incarseration (clearly I have no idea how to spell ) But really...is it fair for me to pay for their lives when they took someone elses? What can they offer to society othr than debt?
Thanks for the welcome Icarus..A good friend of mine told me about y'all and I had to come see for myself...very nice group thus far Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, How is it MORE of a waste of resources to keep them until they are terminated than to keep the for the rest of their natural lives? At least with capital punishment there is an en in sight...
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the only alternatives need to be our current system of interminable legal maneuvering, where executing a criminal actually does cost more than keeping one in prison for life, or killing people without due process, and killing lots more innocents in the process. In this day and age, it must be possible to create a more effective proccess (which may include a more stringent burden of proof when seeking capital punishment). Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious what desert has to do with what happens to us prior to death and judgement, Scott. On your worldview it seems like murderers and rapists will get what they deserve in the end no matter what. Why worry about it here on earth?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see your point Icarus. And though it may appear that I am devout to the stance I am taking, in truth I am not all for or all against capital punishment as it exists now. There are too many contradictions. Such as the alcohol swab that they use on the condemned before lethal injection. The questions I am raising are those that i am echoing from other discussions about this topic. Iam playing devils advocate to a degree.
Obviously the untimate goal in all of this discussion is the prevention of innocent death. And though I do think that reports of innocents being put to death in the country are exagerated, I think it might happen, and if that is the case then that is a travesty and steps shold be taken to prevent such occurences. But before we wholly reject our legal system... Lets look at the numbers as compared to other alternatives and I think that we will all agree that comparitvly our system is much better than most. I mean at least we are concerned with peoples rights.
As for the cost issue...i can't see how providing for someones life can cost more than terminating them. Unless we are talking about legal fees, which is another issue...and may require some further inspection and deflation. Maybe the way to fix the cost issue is to lessen the nature of this image of humane capital punishment? How much does a bullet cost?
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find very interesting is the current administration's take on the death penalty. George Bush once gave a lecture at Texas A & M (gasp, yes the man is not a total idiot ) about the death penalty. He talked a lot about Hobbes and the state of nature, and the need for absolute rule of law.
What I find utterly ironic is that Hobbes, the essence of absolute rule by the state to preserve order, has one exception where he felt rebellion was legitimate:
when the state tries to kill you.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had a change of heart about this same issue, and surprisingly so has my husband. Dyed in the wool conservative that he is, it really surprised me when he said he'd changed his mind on the death penalty.
My reasons from going from a death penalty supporter to a non-supporter are:
My desire to live as a committed Christian. One of my core beliefs is redemption, and the sanctity of life. The murderer on death row right now has the same right to redemption as I do, and his status as a sinner is exactly the same as mine.
the injustice of the current system, and the revelations that DNA testing has caused. Too many innocent people on death row have been set free - how many were executed before DNA testing was available? How many innocent people are on death row in cases where DNA cannot exonerate them?
The ridiculous process that a death penalty case has turned into - it costs so much money and so much of the court's time, and it gives the inmate a national forum and a chance at martyrdom status. I'd rather they just sit in a cell and people forget about them than have them turned into trading card subjects.
Like Pat, I'd rather see hard labor as a an option, and it angers me to see prisoners getting privileges that many citizens don't have. I think we are too easy on many criminals - but that's an issue separate from the death penalty. the death penalty's existence doesn't mollify my feelings on that score.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, I think that's a better question for Pat than for Scott. Scott has merely said he's in favor of the death penalty as long as innocents don't die. Pat is the one who has said this is too easy, and that he wants murderers to have a lousy life.
Paladin, don't mistake me. I am in favor of the death penalty. It's just that years of looking at this issue have made me aware of all the common statistics and arguments used against capital punishment. (When I was an English teacher, I can't tell you how many Persuasive Essays on capital punishment I read!)
Currently, it does cost more to kill one person than to keep him in prison for life. These costs include the states legal costs during the interminable appeals process (bear in mind that the state actually bears the cost of both the prosecution and the court, while the defense must only pay for it's own lawyers. Death Row inmates are also typically kept in isolation (and in maximum security) while awaiting death, and so their incarceration costs more than that of other inmates.
I would agree that reform seems to be in order, but I'm still, in principal, in favor of the death penalty itself.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
The recidivist murderers are the ones who would not have gotten the death penalty in the first place (not all convicted murders are sentenced to death, or even life with or without parole). So regardless of the recidivism rate (speaking of which, murderers have one of the lowest rates of recidivism)
As for deterrence I think Icarus has covered why murderers are largely, if not completely, immune to it. People who are skeptical of this, I think downplay or don't realize that the average human being is not usually rational when under extreme pressures, internally or externally. The 7/11 robber who puts a couple bullets in the cashier clerk wasn't weighing odds, they were nervous, scared, and thought they saw the clerk reach under the counter for something...
But seriously, what sort of society are we, even if we create a death penalty system that is air tight? It seems to me that at that point, we have conceded some of our species' better qualities/emotions. It says, "We've given up." I know this may sound hollow from a lapsed liberal Christian, but I feel that if God has never given up on us, giving us his only Son, then within our society we should do EVERYTHING we can not to give up on our fellow man.
We can change the laws to lock them away forever (short of exoneration), we can make them do work that will provide our society a little good from their lives. If they are criminally insane, we can study them, and understand better the warning signs.
posted
The whole DNA testing situation strikes me as being...off somehow. As a biologist, I know that any test can give incorrect results, and so far as I am aware the people who are being freed were by no means sentenced frivolously by incompetent judges and juries. There was a strong, highly substantial case against them or they would not have been sentenced to death.
I have the strange feeling that one of these days someone will be caught in the act by the police, under the eye of a dozen video cameras, and the DNA tests will say it wasn't him. Which will we believe then?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I agree that DNA tests are important evidence, by the way. I would never say they should be simply ignored. But no single piece of evidence can be totally conclusive. Chemical tests can fail due to minor lab errors. They can fail due to sloppy testers. They can fail due to contamination at the site. And they can even fail due to corruption or activism on the part of the scientists doing the test. A DNA test is strong evidence. But if large amounts of other evidence contradict it, it can still be set aside.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anybody who tells you the death penalty is never a deterrant is a liar. Anybody who tells you its always a deterrent is a liar. Obviously, there are people in this world who would kill if the only penalty was a firm talking to from a penal rehabilitationist. If there were no penalty, even more people would kill. (Anybody ever read Robert Sheckley's "The Monsters"?)
And, just like some kids have unprotected sex even though they know the consequences, some people still kill.
So arguing whether or not its a deterrant is as pointless as arguing whether its better to pass or run on a football play. There are going to be situations where it could go either way.
The soul arguement involved in the death penalty, the way I see it, is whether or not that killer still has the right to life. If he doesn't, then we need to kill him. If he does, then we let him live, no matter how much we may think his death may deter other murderers.
As for Christianity, well, the book of Romans argues for the death penalty for a bunch of sins that carry right on down into things not a single person would feel worthy of that in this day and age. And while the bible does teach that you and I need to forgive one another, it does not teach that somehow being forgiven by Christians means not having to face the consequences of your actions.
I'm not talking about giving the death penalty to somebody who shot a man who was breaking into his house. I'm not even neccesarily talking about giving the death penalty to a man who shot the man he found in bed with his wife.
But I am absolutely, positively talking about giving it to the man who's proven he's willing to kill or rape, over and over, and has shown, through his blatant disregard for the humanity in others, that he's lost the humanity in himself.
You and me got the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He's given up his claim on all three.
posted
A scattershot of thoughts about the death penalty:
Certainly, people do things that are so awful that they deserve to die for them. I don't think it logically follows that society is obliged to kill them.
Anyway, I don't honestly see that killing someone is the worst punishment they can get. Maybe they go through more fear by sitting in jail for a few years during all the appeals and then being killed. But, I honestly think it would be much worse to be forced to sit in jail for maybe as long as fifty or sixty or seventy years (in the case of someone who is convicted at a very young age and given life without) day in and day out and know that they are never, ever going to get out.
Besides, as I think I've probably said here before, and as glib and trite as it is, it just does not make sense to me to prove it is wrong to kill by killing.
I also believe, fervently, that if life is sacred it is life itself that makes it sacred, not what happens to be done with that life. That's why I admire the consistency of the Catholic Church's stand that both abortion and the death penalty are wrong.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that I can give an opinion on this.
1) Because my father was murdered, many people assume I'm FOR the death penalty.
2) because I'm a Christian, many people assume I'm AGAINST the death penalty.
It's a hard call for many reasons -- I'm just going to watch your debate.
However, I cringe when I know my taxdollars are paying for the $26,000 per year it costs to keep a murderer in prison; pay for his food, upkeep, medical costs, any schooling he wants, etc. When sometimes I don't even have funds to feed my own kids.
But I also know how enormous is the cost of prosecuting a death penalty case. (also our taxdollars).
And I know that currently, life in prison is NOT life in prison.
There are a lot of things about the system that needs to change.
posted
doc, that's true, only if there weren't similar punishments available. It's proven that life (with or without parole) is statistically equivalent to the death penalty. So I don't see the point in making many murders cost two lives, no matter how despicable one of them may have been.
So even if it is a deterrent in certain cases (which I'm sure it is, I guess I'll just preface any point with "statistically speaking" from now on), it at best deters some that life imprisonment won't, while at the same time failing to deter others that life imprisonment does deter. All at less cost of life per murder.
posted
While I am a very strong supporter of the death penalty I have to advocate that the detterence factor is thrown out. This is so simply because deterence is not the purpose. People who commit capital crimes do not contemplate the punishment. Period. This comes from a very credible source, my mother. She would know because she is one of about 4 people who must sign off on the state seeking the death penalty for every case in Miami-Dade County.
Shlomo brought up the idea of rehabilitation which is a nice lofty idealistic goal but is simply absurd. Why would you want to rehabilitate someone who is never going to be put into an environment where rehabilitation is an issue. Unless of course Shlomo is advocating that we release people like Timothy McVeigh or Saddam Hussein once they are "rehabilitated".
The unfortunate issue of wrongfully executed indivuduals needs to be solved at the trial level. Individuals are only supposed to be convicted when there is no reasonable doubt. Perhaps this ought to be taken more seriously, or jurors should be better screened, or grand juries need to be made more effective, but the solution is not in changing the penalty.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:People who commit capital crimes do not contemplate the punishment. Period. This comes from a very credible source, my mother.
Does she also know the number of people who didn't commit those crimes because they did contemplate the punishment?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Icarus for addressing the fact that keeping a person locked up costs LESS than it does to euthanize said person.
Another thing:
quote: I agree that DNA tests are important evidence, by the way. I would never say they should be simply ignored. But no single piece of evidence can be totally conclusive.
No it's not totally conclusive, but it is (depending on circumstances of course) 99.9999999999999999999999% conclusive. Oh, and:
quote: That's why I admire the consistency of the Catholic Church's stand that both abortion and the death penalty are wrong.
Yes, but they are just as fervently against the use of condoms and birth control pills/patches.
[ January 26, 2004, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Does she also know the number of people who didn't commit those crimes because they did contemplate the punishment?
