Why I oppose the death penalty

chuckiechan said:

Those are all great arguments for the criminal, but when you kill a person - particularly someone who just got in the way of your crime - you are taking everything they will ever have, and have also taken a branch off of someone's genetic tree. All for what? Money? To save your self from being identified? You are too dumb not to?

Or: Police:
"Why did you kill the clerk?"
"I don't know".
And the dumb son of a bitch probably doesn't know because he doesn't have the humanity to have a mental alternative before he kills someone.

And regarding the wrong person defense. It happens, but rarely, and those cases are rarely death penalty cases. We have a cop killer in Sacrament just convicted that bragged in court about killing the two cops. He'll probably die of old age on death row while he's a hero to his fellow inmates.

Even civilized societies have their limits.

Click to expand...

That sounds a lot like an eye for an eye sort of an argument. The criminal took someone else's life, so he should give up his life. The thing about that is, life in prison really is no life at all.

Dittohead not! said:

That sounds a lot like an eye for an eye sort of an argument. The criminal took someone else's life, so he should give up his life. The thing about that is, life in prison really is no life at all.

Click to expand...

Life in prison to a lifer isn't all that bad. You are thinking like an honest person.

Normal people don't rob stores and murder clerks just for the hell of it. So normal persons see prison as an awful place, and a life they cannot imagine living. Criminals can. Convicts join gangs, have societies, and adapt to prison life and live a weird version of our own.

I'd like you to ask your police department to let you visit a crime scene of a murder. It's not like on TV - stoic cops and crime tech's. You might just change your mind. Societies best protection from predation is swift retaliation using all of the tools available to make sure you have the right person.

Felis Leo said:

That is true, but that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. That is an argument against the efficacy of the criminal justice system allowing the perpetration of miscarriages of justice.
Because the same argument could be made for people who are wrongfully convicted for non-death penalty crimes they did not commit and end up spending the best years in prison and being subjected to the hatred, scorn and obloquy of their peers. You can make the same argument

Click to expand...

True, and your argument is more one of improving the justice system overall. If it were more perfect, then perhaps the death penalty would be more justified. As it is, the DP isn't appropriate.

Felis Leo said:

Well, I respect that view. But by that same principle, do you believe police officers and law enforcement personnel should not be armed with firearms or other lethal weapons, and never be allowed to use lethal force while engaging in the execution of their duties?

Click to expand...

Of course police officers have to be armed, and sometimes have to use deadly force. They should only use deadly force in self defense, IMO. Firing at a fleeing subject, shooting someone who is unarmed, or killing someone who is already subdued is not appropriate use of force IMO. Deadly force should be a last resort.

Felis Leo said:

True, but legislation could be passed to streamline the costs (such as making the appeals process more quick and cost effective, shortening jury selection times, eliminating separate housing for death row inmates, etc.). I do not believe that efficiency and cost of the death penalty has anything to do with whether the death penalty is correct. After all, if the death penalty cost no more than life imprisonment, would then you be for allowing it?

Click to expand...

The system could be streamlined, but at the cost of making it more likely to convict innocent people.

Felis Leo said:

I am not sure. While I subscribe to the view of retributive justice, I am not sure whether life imprisonment is a much more punishment.

Click to expand...

I may be projecting there. To me, there isn't much that could be worse than being locked up. A sudden and painless death would be preferable.

Felis Leo said:

That appears to be a complete non sequitur as to the correctness of imposing the death penalty. I do not see how it is a "lottery," when those convicted of capital offenses had to undergo a trial before a jury of their peers. That hardly seems like a "lottery" to me.

Click to expand...

The point is, being sentenced to death is highly unlikely. If twenty people are convicted of first degree murder, but only one is sentenced to the death penalty, how is that just?

Felis Leo said:

That can certainly be an issue if the person who was sentenced



I do not see that as an argument one way or the other for why the death penalty is wrong, other. I do not think argumentum ad populum adds any further weight to the correctness of being anti-death penalty. After all, if most other "civilized" countries had the death penalty on the books, would you suddenly be pro-death penalty?

Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on whether you believe other nations' opinions of the US is of any consequence. When Canada, for example, won't extradite a prisoner who may have committed a capital crime to any nation that has the death penalty, that puts the US in a class with some of the most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet. I think we're better than that.

Felis Leo said:

True. But this is not a problem unique to the same can be said of virtually any crime whatsoever.



I disagree. I believe the death penalty should be reserved for serious crimes in order that society be allowed to exact retribution against those who have betrayed and so brutally harmed society.

Click to expand...

If you subscribe to the eye for an eye philosophy, then you do have a point there.

chuckiechan said:

Life in prison to a lifer isn't all that bad. You are thinking like an honest person.

Normal people don't rob stores and murder clerks just for the hell of it. So normal persons see prison as an awful place, and a life they cannot imagine living. Criminals can. Convicts join gangs, have societies, and adapt to prison life and live a weird version of our own.

I'd like you to ask your police department to let you visit a crime scene of a murder. It's not like on TV - stoic cops and crime tech's. You might just change your mind. Societies best protection from predation is swift retaliation using all of the tools available to make sure you have the right person.

Click to expand...

You may have a point there. Prison must not seem so bad for some people, or they wouldn't be so anxious to risk returning there after having served time for a crime. Personally, I can't imagine their point of view, but it must be right for them.

Still, if a murderer is locked up and has no hope of ever getting out, he is no longer a threat to society.

Dittohead not! said:

I used to think I was for the death penalty. Once a murderer is executed, after all, he/she can't come back and kill anyone else. An eye for an eye, and all that, however:

1. Despite the many safeguards we have in the US, innocent people still wind up on death row. Once a person is executed, it's too late to do anything about it.
2. The power of life and death is too much to hand the government.
3. It is more costly to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.
4. A painless death is not as much of a punishment as life without parole.
5. The death penalty is a lethal lottery: of the 15,000 to 17,000 homicides committed every year in the United States, only about 120 people are sentenced to death,
6. Many of the people executed are mentally ill.
7. Most of the civilized nations of the world have already abandoned the death penalty.
8. The poor are far more likely to be executed than those with the means to hire a lawyer rather than depend on a public defender.


There you go. Agree or disagree? What is your reasoning?

Click to expand...

I fully agree with you and add to it that I think the death penalty is immoral too.

Slingshot Bob said:

When a dog goes rabid, you shoot it. Not sure why it would be much different for a man.

Should be overwhelmingly clear they are guilty, first though.

Click to expand...

A dog is rabid and cannot be healed, also it is a dog, not a person. When a dog (or other animal) is too sick, injured or not adoptable, they get euthanized, people are not allowed to have that soft dead.

Dittohead not! said:

I used to think I was for the death penalty. Once a murderer is executed, after all, he/she can't come back and kill anyone else. An eye for an eye, and all that, however:

1. Despite the many safeguards we have in the US, innocent people still wind up on death row. Once a person is executed, it's too late to do anything about it.
2. The power of life and death is too much to hand the government.
3. It is more costly to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.
4. A painless death is not as much of a punishment as life without parole.
5. The death penalty is a lethal lottery: of the 15,000 to 17,000 homicides committed every year in the United States, only about 120 people are sentenced to death,
6. Many of the people executed are mentally ill.
7. Most of the civilized nations of the world have already abandoned the death penalty.
8. The poor are far more likely to be executed than those with the means to hire a lawyer rather than depend on a public defender.


There you go. Agree or disagree? What is your reasoning?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you on that. I don't like the idea of being a party to ending someone's life. The general population is the best way to go in my view, but the trouble there is that we have 'protective custody', which is what this Joseph DiAngelo is going go into.

vegas giants said:

There are some people who make the world better by leaving it. I have no problem with the government killing these people

Click to expand...

Well, we disagree. A prisoner suffers longer through long term confinement and it is a horrible punishment however it leaves the opportunity for innocence to be found. A death penalty takes that away - a society is better for treating the innocent fairly, not throwing them to the dogs for the sake of ideology.

Dittohead not! said:

I used to think I was for the death penalty. Once a murderer is executed, after all, he/she can't come back and kill anyone else. An eye for an eye, and all that, however:

1. Despite the many safeguards we have in the US, innocent people still wind up on death row. Once a person is executed, it's too late to do anything about it.
2. The power of life and death is too much to hand the government.
3. It is more costly to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.
4. A painless death is not as much of a punishment as life without parole.
5. The death penalty is a lethal lottery: of the 15,000 to 17,000 homicides committed every year in the United States, only about 120 people are sentenced to death,
6. Many of the people executed are mentally ill.
7. Most of the civilized nations of the world have already abandoned the death penalty.
8. The poor are far more likely to be executed than those with the means to hire a lawyer rather than depend on a public defender.


There you go. Agree or disagree? What is your reasoning?

Click to expand...

Killing a murderer/rapist shows that our society has the highest value for human life...

Infinite Chaos said:

Well, we disagree. A prisoner suffers longer through long term confinement and it is a horrible punishment however it leaves the opportunity for innocence to be found. A death penalty takes that away - a society is better for treating the innocent fairly, not throwing them to the dogs for the sake of ideology.

Click to expand...

Question.

Would you ever trust a known/convicted liar/cheater?

Bodhisattva said:

Question.

Would you ever trust a known/convicted liar/cheater?

Click to expand...

Depends on the specifics and extent of my dealings. Not a black and white answer I know, but one I have learned from life experience. That convicted liar/cheater has to see themselves gaining something better as a reward for compliance than the specific thing that I am trusting them with for me to deal with them.

If I know the person will gain (in a way I am happy to accept) from doing something then I would trust that person in a very specific and limited agreement. If I knew there was nothing for the convicted liar/cheater to gain through our dealings or agreement then no way would I trust them.

Dittohead not! said:

I used to think I was for the death penalty. Once a murderer is executed, after all, he/she can't come back and kill anyone else. An eye for an eye, and all that, however:

1. Despite the many safeguards we have in the US, innocent people still wind up on death row. Once a person is executed, it's too late to do anything about it.
2. The power of life and death is too much to hand the government.
3. It is more costly to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.
4. A painless death is not as much of a punishment as life without parole.
5. The death penalty is a lethal lottery: of the 15,000 to 17,000 homicides committed every year in the United States, only about 120 people are sentenced to death,
6. Many of the people executed are mentally ill.
7. Most of the civilized nations of the world have already abandoned the death penalty.
8. The poor are far more likely to be executed than those with the means to hire a lawyer rather than depend on a public defender.


There you go. Agree or disagree? What is your reasoning?

Click to expand...

Given the outlandish inefficiencies and inaccuracies in government, you're probably right.

Perhaps a world jail located at the South Pole in which we could keep the incorrigible criminals. Wouldn't need much of a security system. Just a warm place to avoid death.

Those that self select to be executed could just enjoy a nice walk outside.

I wonder how many would decide that Gitmo ain't so bad...

code1211 said:

Given the outlandish inefficiencies and inaccuracies in government, you're probably right.

Perhaps a world jail located at the South Pole in which we could keep the incorrigible criminals. Wouldn't need much of a security system. Just a warm place to avoid death.

Those that self select to be executed could just enjoy a nice walk outside.

I wonder how many would decide that Gitmo ain't so bad...

Click to expand...

It's unlikely anyone wold be able to escape. That should cut the budget for guards.

Aristaeus said:

4. I think many on death row may disagree with you on that.

I'm opposed to the DP mainly on the grounds that it is immoral to kill someone who is completely powerless to stop it.

Click to expand...

By the same logic, isn't also immoral to inprison someone who is powerless to stop it?

Dittohead not! said:

I used to think I was for the death penalty. Once a murderer is executed, after all, he/she can't come back and kill anyone else. An eye for an eye, and all that, however:

1. Despite the many safeguards we have in the US, innocent people still wind up on death row. Once a person is executed, it's too late to do anything about it.

Click to expand...

No innocent people have been executed in the modern era. Also if someone spends decades in prison or dies while in prison it’s too late to help them. This is an emotional argument.

2. The power of life and death is too much to hand the government.

Click to expand...

it is a power held by us the people as a whole, including juries, not exclusively the government

3. It is more costly to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.

Click to expand...

which can be reformed, also cost is not the sole measure of justice

4. A painless death is not as much of a punishment as life without parole.

Click to expand...

wait so it’s too much to vest a power of death in the judiciary, but not too much to vest a power of torture?

5. The death penalty is a lethal lottery: of the 15,000 to 17,000 homicides committed every year in the United States, only about 120 people are sentenced to death,

Click to expand...

so?

6. Many of the people executed are mentally ill.

Click to expand...

so? When was mental illness an excuse to kill someone? Plus most “mental illness” is really a sob story invented by defense lawyers to get their guilty client off of death row. Additionally the fact a condemned inmate happens to be mentally ill is not a reason to not execute them, the defense of mental illness hinges on showing they were so mentally ill they couldn’t comprehend what they were doing was wrong.

7. Most of the civilized nations of the world have already abandoned the death penalty.

Click to expand...

so?

8. The poor are far more likely to be executed than those with the means to hire a lawyer rather than depend on a public defender.

Click to expand...

death penalty appeals are done by special lawyers, not regular public defenders

There you go. Agree or disagree? What is your reasoning?

Click to expand...

Point by point response

Slingshot Bob said:

When a dog goes rabid, you shoot it. Not sure why it would be much different for a man.

Click to expand...

It's all the difference in the world because man is not a dog.

EMNofSeattle said:

No innocent people have been executed in the modern era. Also if someone spends decades in prison or dies while in prison it’s too late to help them. This is an emotional argument.
it is a power held by us the people as a whole, including juries, not exclusively the government
which can be reformed, also cost is not the sole measure of justice
wait so it’s too much to vest a power of death in the judiciary, but not too much to vest a power of torture?
so?
so? When was mental illness an excuse to kill someone? Plus most “mental illness” is really a sob story invented by defense lawyers to get their guilty client off of death row. Additionally the fact a condemned inmate happens to be mentally ill is not a reason to not execute them, the defense of mental illness hinges on showing they were so mentally ill they couldn’t comprehend what they were doing was wrong.
so?
death penalty appeals are done by special lawyers, not regular public defenders



Point by point response

Click to expand...

Your first statement would be very difficult to support, as it involves proving a negative.

Moreover, here's evidence to the contrary:

ONE IN 25 SENTENCED TO DEATH IN THE U.S. IS INNOCENT, STUDY CLAIMS

(all caps copied, not mine)

A new study believes the figure is 1 in every 25—or 4.1 percent.

The study, released Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "tells you that a surprising number of innocent people are sentenced to death," Samuel R. Gross, the lead author, said in an interview with Newsweek. "It tells you that a lot of them haven't been exonerated. Some of them no doubt have been executed."

Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:

Your first statement would be very difficult to support, as it involves proving a negative.

Moreover, here's evidence to the contrary:

ONE IN 25 SENTENCED TO DEATH IN THE U.S. IS INNOCENT, STUDY CLAIMS

(all caps copied, not mine)

Click to expand...

A wrongful conviction is a wrongful conviction, not a statistical model. Unless you can show me the 4.6 percent of cases that were wrongful I consider this invented numbers by someone who is politically opposed to the death penalty.

And proving a wrongful execution is not proving a negative, the evidence leading to conviction is available to the public for anyone to analyze and make their case

EMNofSeattle said:

A wrongful conviction is a wrongful conviction, not a statistical model. Unless you can show me the 4.6 percent of cases that were wrongful I consider this invented numbers by someone who is politically opposed to the death penalty.

And proving a wrongful execution is not proving a negative, the evidence leading to conviction is available to the public for anyone to analyze and make their case

Click to expand...

Proving that no innocent people have been executed in the modern era is proving a negative.

The study I found is based on the number of people on death row who were exonerated. It shows that people have been sentenced to death for crimes that they didn't commit. It's pretty short leap to conclude that some of them were executed before they could be exonerated.

Dittohead not! said:

Proving that no innocent people have been executed in the modern era is proving a negative.

The study I found is based on the number of people on death row who were exonerated. It shows that people have been sentenced to death for crimes that they didn't commit. It's pretty short leap to conclude that some of them were executed before they could be exonerated.

Click to expand...

the number in that case is 1.6% and that's of an extremely small subset of cases usually involving early application of forensic procedures that are now far better. so that excuse is obsolete, and even at that number the 1.6% is not really an excuse to eliminate a just punishment for the 98.4%. I'm perfectly happy with that success rate if that even is true that one and a half percent are exonerated before being executed and those 1.6 are all people convicted before 1995. If we're talking over 5% then maybe we can have a discussion, but at most it's less then two, and that's if any innocent people have been executed at all which I don't believe has even happened post Fuhrman.

EMNofSeattle said:

the number in that case is 1.6% and that's of an extremely small subset of cases usually involving early application of forensic procedures that are now far better. so that excuse is obsolete, and even at that number the 1.6% is not really an excuse to eliminate a just punishment for the 98.4%. I'm perfectly happy with that success rate if that even is true that one and a half percent are exonerated before being executed and those 1.6 are all people convicted before 1995. If we're talking over 5% then maybe we can have a discussion, but at most it's less then two, and that's if any innocent people have been executed at all which I don't believe has even happened post Fuhrman.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. interesting. At which point, then is it OK to execute innocent people? 1.6% is OK, 5% is too many, maybe 3%? How about 2.5%.
If there are no executions, then zero innocents will be executed. That's the only way to be sure the number is zero.

Dittohead not! said:

It's unlikely anyone wold be able to escape. That should cut the budget for guards.

Click to expand...

If the two of US agree on this, there must be a nugget of wisdom there.

Might be hard to find, but it might be there...

The reasons I'm against the DP: it's not effective in deterring crime, so really it's only vengeance.

And on top of that, it's very very expensive.