Death Penalty

Vader · 09-24-05, 04:00 PM

I have always been against the death penalty because of the sheer number of innocent people who have been executed.

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

Some interesting insight from: http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.
States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse."

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

Discovery · 10-09-05, 10:25 AM

That's really interesting.

I myself am also against the death penalty one reason being is that it seems inhumane to do such a thing, even though that person has murdered. It's like committing another murder.

Canuck · 10-09-05, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

I have always been against the death penalty because of the sheer number of innocent people who have been executed.

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

Some interesting insight from: http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.
States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse."

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

death penalty is no longer a deterent
mexicans rather be dead then poor
the gangs of illegal aliens from Mexico battle it out in the streets
on a daily basis no different to iraq today
it is more likely that an la police officer die from an illegal alien then an american soldier in IRAQ
today
and they just don't give a damn who you are they will kill you
because they dont want to be poor and dont care about the death penalty
the only thing to fear is fear itself
the ,mexicans have nothing to lose worse case they go to jail and get 3 squares a day
and will form gangs of thugs to protect their turf
coming to an American city near you
they have you out numbered and will soon out vote both the democrates and the republicans combined
their party is called mexico owns our destiny
or DOOM for short

MiamiFlorida · 10-09-05, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

I have always been against the death penalty because of the sheer number of innocent people who have been executed.

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

Some interesting insight from: http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.
States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse."

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

Very interesting

TimmyBoy · 10-10-05, 01:05 AM

Here is a question I have. Did Texas at one time not have the death penalty, but then later on, decided to re-institute the death penalty? If this is true, what were the reasons why Texas decided to re-institute the death penalty?

Donkey1499 · 10-10-05, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discovery

That's really interesting.

I myself am also against the death penalty one reason being is that it seems inhumane to do such a thing, even though that person has murdered. It's like committing another murder.

Uhh... You can't murder a murderer. I believe in Hammurabi's Law/Code thingy. Eye fer an eye! Plus, why the Hell should my tax dollars go to paying for some serial killer to live in prison? And with modern forensics (which is still improving) the % of innocent ppl on death is PROBABLY going down. Child rapists should either be put to death or have their "parts" chopped off.

Donkey1499 · 10-10-05, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discovery

That's really interesting.

I myself am also against the death penalty one reason being is that it seems inhumane to do such a thing, even though that person has murdered. It's like committing another murder.

Oh yeah. And did you ever think about how "inhumane" it was when the victim was murdered by the suspect? Why are liberals always more focused on the rights of criminals instead of the victims? Like OJ, he has the "Luxury" of going home every night, but the woman he MURDERED doesn't.

XShipRider · 10-28-05, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey1499

Oh yeah. And did you ever think about how "inhumane" it was when the victim was murdered by the suspect? Why are liberals always more focused on the rights of criminals instead of the victims? Like OJ, he has the "Luxury" of going home every night, but the woman he MURDERED doesn't.

Donk' I'm on the same page much of the time with you but not with regard
to the death penalty.

It amazes me how many people, even if only a few, are exonerated of
quite heinous crimes through DNA testing. Some death row inmates,
life in prison inmates and lesser sentences are exonerated of crimes
every year.

How can we as a nation say abortion is wrong but the death penalty is
right? I know... unborn children have no sin. I understand that but
beg the question, "If people are being exonerated through DNA testing,
how many people have we wrongfully put to death?"

There are those who spew it's better to put one innocent to death than
let ten guilty people go free. That's all fine and good but those innocents
put to death aren't getting a say in the matter. Put yourself in the shoes
of an innocent condemned to death. Can you imagine the horror?

I used to be pro-death penalty but after seeing a few exonerated have
changed my mind. It definitely provokes thought.

Brigand · 10-29-05, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey1499

Oh yeah. And did you ever think about how "inhumane" it was when the victim was murdered by the suspect? Why are liberals always more focused on the rights of criminals instead of the victims? Like OJ, he has the "Luxury" of going home every night, but the woman he MURDERED doesn't.

I'm confused about your analogy here...how does your disdain of liberals and their call for these rights of criminals, tie in with the OJ simpson case?

Donkey1499 · 10-31-05, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XShipRider

Donk' I'm on the same page much of the time with you but not with regard
to the death penalty.

It amazes me how many people, even if only a few, are exonerated of
quite heinous crimes through DNA testing. Some death row inmates,
life in prison inmates and lesser sentences are exonerated of crimes
every year.

How can we as a nation say abortion is wrong but the death penalty is
right? I know... unborn children have no sin. I understand that but
beg the question, "If people are being exonerated through DNA testing,
how many people have we wrongfully put to death?"

There are those who spew it's better to put one innocent to death than
let ten guilty people go free. That's all fine and good but those innocents
put to death aren't getting a say in the matter. Put yourself in the shoes
of an innocent condemned to death. Can you imagine the horror?

I used to be pro-death penalty but after seeing a few exonerated have
changed my mind. It definitely provokes thought.

It is sad to see an innocent being die, but with modern forensics (which is still improving everyday) it's rare when an innocent person goes to jail. But, only those who can be proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, should be put to death.

If you have a bus load of nuns tell you that a man murdered his friend on the roadway, and all of them can positively ID the man, and they find the murder weapon, with his fingerprints on it; then the man is guilty and should be put to death. But, then it all depends why he killed his friend. Was it in self defense? Did his friend do something to **** him off? Or what? I guess it really just depends on the circumstances of the case.

But I still think that guys like Son of Sam and the Boston Stranglers should be put to death. Even the BTK guy.