• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support instant executions upon sentencing for murder?

Would you support instant executions upon sentencing for murder?

  • Total voters
    67
I am fundamentally against the death penalty. I don't trust even our fairly good judicial system to get it right often enough. I am to afraid of the number of death penalties that cannot be overturned if found to be wrong. I say this even though I knew a police officer killed by a gangster named Adrian Camacho that will sit on death row for longer than most people live naturally. It is pathetic because this one really deserves it and there is no doubt he did it.

I think the prison sentence should be made as uncomfortable as possible. I like the idea of no entertainment, nothing but 4 white walls and their naked body. What more does the prisoner deserve?
 
Mathematician said:
The same applies when a killer serves 15 years, is released and kills again, does it not? They can also get out by escape or twchnicality. Oopsie, we should have put him down the first time we knew he was willing to kill. I'm willing to bet this happens more often today than wrongful murder convictions.
Click to expand...
No, the same does not happen. For one, there is no innocent family of an innocent man that is suddenly thrust into chaos and probably poverty (though I'm sure you were only addressing the part about the real killer still being loose as you probably didn't have an answer to the innocent family aspect).

Your premise is still fatally flawed, however, as short sentences can be fixed while there is no guarantee (or even likelihood) that the never-caught person would be caught for the next crime, either. They might go on an commit a dozen crimes before... **IF**... they're ever caught.

I'd be willing to bet that escapes happen far less often than wrongful convictions. As far as technicalities, be careful what you wish for. Sure, you can "fix" those, too, but do you really want to live in a society that railroads people into convictions because they "know" the person is guilty? You probably do. I don't. Not enough safeguards only serves to increase wrongful convictions and start the first domino falling for destroyed families whose father/husband (usually) did nothing wrong. Winning the case over actual guilt/innocence is already too important to prosecutors as they know too many citizens are blindly trusting and satisfied with an illusion of safety over actual safety.
 
radcen said:
I don't know if you're seriously proposing the idea, or if you're just posing the question to stimulate conversation. Some people do honestly think along these lines, though, and all I can do is shake my head and wonder at the depth of their naivete in blindly trusting the accuracy of our government and justice system.
Click to expand...

If you'll look at who voted for what, you'll see I voted against it. I honestly posted the question just to see if anyone were extremist enough to vote for it. If I were writing a dystopian novel, I might have them use such a system. I have actually met someone who favors having a firing squad standing by for an instant execution in case of a guilty verdict.

I oppose the death penalty in all forms.
 
Murder is the greatest crime and I don't understand why murders are ever released. By executing them, you are doing them a favor. Let them sit in a cell with nothing to do.



Mathematician said:
The same applies when a killer serves 15 years, is released and kills again, does it not? They can also get out by escape or twchnicality. Oopsie, we should have put him down the first time we knew he was willing to kill. I'm willing to bet this happens more often today than wrongful murder convictions.
Click to expand...
 
But what if they're innocent.? Wouldn't that be a fate worse than death?


Slateriesling said:
I am fundamentally against the death penalty. I don't trust even our fairly good judicial system to get it right often enough. I am to afraid of the number of death penalties that cannot be overturned if found to be wrong. I say this even though I knew a police officer killed by a gangster named Adrian Camacho that will sit on death row for longer than most people live naturally. It is pathetic because this one really deserves it and there is no doubt he did it.

I think the prison sentence should be made as uncomfortable as possible. I like the idea of no entertainment, nothing but 4 white walls and their naked body. What more does the prisoner deserve?
Click to expand...
 
Why not just give them the "Obama penalty" - take them out to a field and drone them.
 
specklebang said:
Murder is the greatest crime and I don't understand why murders are ever released. By executing them, you are doing them a favor. Let them sit in a cell with nothing to do.
Click to expand...

The time, money and effort to keep them alive and monitor them is a waste. Only a kid deserves to be babysat with paying for it. I would only support life sentences if prisoners are forced into slavery so that they actually benefit society in some way.
 
Mathematician said:
The time, money and effort to keep them alive and monitor them is a waste. Only a kid deserves to be babysat with paying for it. I would only support life sentences if prisoners are forced into slavery so that they actually benefit society in some way.
Click to expand...

But what about my other question?

specklebang said:
But what if they're innocent.? Wouldn't that be a fate worse than death?
Click to expand...
 
in such cases where guilt is not in question ( such as when the defendant pleads guilty)..sure, i'd go for a speedy execution.
I believe in some places guilty pleas are not allowable for death penalty cases.... which strikes me as stupid ( I think a defendant should be able to wave his appeals rights through a guilty plea, if he is competent and understand what the consequences are.)

I'm not opposed to the death penalty.... some folks simply deserve to die for their crimes.
 
specklebang said:
But what about my other question?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think life in prison is worse than death, especially if the death involves pain or humiliation. Screw the electric chair or lethal injection. Save taxpayer money, because I'll do the honors as community service.

If they were innocent and wrongfully convicted, oh well. **** happens. Either you need a better justice system or they've got **** for luck to have enough evidence to wrongfully convict them. Life's decisions should all be based on cost/benefit analysis looking at the likelihood of outcomes. Weigh the risks and consider worst case scenarios. A wrongful death penalty conviction kills at most one innocent person. A convicted murderer who becomes free can kill an arbitrary number of innocent people. Here's a short sample of murderers jailed and then killing again:

CLEARWATER, Fla.: Escaped prisoner gets life for double-murder - Florida Wires - MiamiHerald.com

A List of Murderers Released to Murder Again!

http://www.lowellpl.lib.in.us/convicts.htm

S. Dakota executes inmate who killed prison guard
 
Mathematician said:
It depends on the justice system and the expected value of accuracy. If 1 in 1,000,000 conviction is wrongful then I'd support the immediate executution of them. Too many people expect the justice system to be perfect when, in most aspects, it's not an exact science. With the system as it is now, more than one additional innocent person is going to be killed on average by 999,999 murderers. Many disagree, but I prefer the government take 1 innocent life by mistake than let criminals take 1,000 intentionally.

Criminals like James Holmes don't even deserve a trial. If a mass murderer is caught in the act, a criminal trial is a waste of time, money and effort on a piece of scum. He deserves to suck on the end of a double barrel shotgun as the trigger is pulled. :blastem:
Click to expand...
There is a difference between justice and retribution. You're advocating the latter, which is a knee jerk response to anger. Even those who we know are guilty must receive justice because of the others for whom guilt is not so clear cut.

Allow people to arm themselves so they can protect themselves against criminals. Spend public funds to ensure a speedy and responsive justice system when criminals are apprehended. Have checks and balances to reduce abuses. That is what a civil society must do.
 
ChuckBerry said:
So police officers may not fire on a suspect if that person is threatening their lives or the life of a citizen?
Click to expand...

There's a difference. When a crook is in the process of committing a violent crime, a cop is justified in using lethal force. The public (and the cop himself) is in immediate danger. When a murderer is locked up, he's no longer a threat. He's removed from society, and escapes from prison are extremely rare.
 
Or we could join the civilized world and no longer have executions.
AmericanWoman76 said:
I lost count of how many times a person has been convicted of murder, and then years late, new evidence proved the convicted person was innocent. I can't for the life of me, imagine why anyone would want to kill that many innocent people.
Click to expand...
 
Luna Tick said:
The way it is now, a person who gets convicted of murder and sentenced to death spends years on death row going through numerous appeals at cost to the state. What if instead we had the gallows, the electric chair, a firing squad, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection chamber standing by for sentencing? If the murderer is sentenced to death, he or she is immediately taken out for execution. Would you support this policy?
Click to expand...

I would be up for this - but not in every case.

Perhaps they could hold a second (sentencing type) trial to determine if the jury feels it is warranted and justified.
 
Luna Tick said:
The way it is now, a person who gets convicted of murder and sentenced to death spends years on death row going through numerous appeals at cost to the state. What if instead we had the gallows, the electric chair, a firing squad, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection chamber standing by for sentencing? If the murderer is sentenced to death, he or she is immediately taken out for execution. Would you support this policy?
Click to expand...

No. They have to be able to appeal their case. I'm not an expert on law, I don't know why it takes so long for appeals to go through, but doing away with the appeal process altogether and executing a person upon sentencing is just wrong.
 
Luna Tick said:
The way it is now, a person who gets convicted of murder and sentenced to death spends years on death row going through numerous appeals at cost to the state. What if instead we had the gallows, the electric chair, a firing squad, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection chamber standing by for sentencing? If the murderer is sentenced to death, he or she is immediately taken out for execution. Would you support this policy?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

Of the 4,578 capital judgments finally reviewed on direct appeal, 1,885-or 41%-were overturned based on serious error.
Click to expand...
Columbia University, School of Law - Liebman Study

Are you ok with killing that many innocent people? Or at the very least, people whose true offense doesn't trigger the death sentence?

We need to just do away with this barbaric practice all together. The error rate is too high, the cost is too high, and vengeance is not the purpose of the justice system.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Absolutely not.


Columbia University, School of Law - Liebman Study



Are you ok with killing that many innocent people? Or at the very least, people whose true offense doesn't trigger the death sentence?

We need to just do away with this barbaric practice all together. The error rate is too high, the cost is too high, and vengeance is not the purpose of the justice system.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, I'm not. If you look at the votes you'll see I voted against it. I posted this to see if anyone would actually vote for something this extremist.
 
Luna Tick said:
As I said earlier, I'm not. If you look at the votes you'll see I voted against it. I posted this to see if anyone would actually vote for something this extremist.
Click to expand...

I intended that as a universal "you." Sorry about that. :)
 
ChuckBerry said:
So police officers may not fire on a suspect if that person is threatening their lives or the life of a citizen?
Click to expand...

Context Context Context...
 
Mathematician said:
No, I don't think life in prison is worse than death, especially if the death involves pain or humiliation. Screw the electric chair or lethal injection. Save taxpayer money, because I'll do the honors as community service.

If they were innocent and wrongfully convicted, oh well. **** happens. Either you need a better justice system or they've got **** for luck to have enough evidence to wrongfully convict them. Life's decisions should all be based on cost/benefit analysis looking at the likelihood of outcomes. Weigh the risks and consider worst case scenarios. A wrongful death penalty conviction kills at most one innocent person. A convicted murderer who becomes free can kill an arbitrary number of innocent people. Here's a short sample of murderers jailed and then killing again:
Click to expand...
You're simply flat-out wrong, as you are willfully choosing to ignorantly ignore the murderer who never got caught in the cases of wrongful conviction, but you seem to revel in your wrongness, so I'll leave you to it.
 
ChuckBerry said:
There is a difference between justice and retribution. You're advocating the latter, which is a knee jerk response to anger. Even those who we know are guilty must receive justice because of the others for whom guilt is not so clear cut.

Allow people to arm themselves so they can protect themselves against criminals. Spend public funds to ensure a speedy and responsive justice system when criminals are apprehended. Have checks and balances to reduce abuses. That is what a civil society must do.
Click to expand...
No, he's right... if it doesn't balance out on a spreadsheet, off with their heads!

/sarcasm off
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Absolutely not.

Of the 4,578 capital judgments finally reviewed on direct appeal, 1,885-or 41%-were overturned based on serious error.
Click to expand...

Columbia University, School of Law - Liebman Study

Are you ok with killing that many innocent people? Or at the very least, people whose true offense doesn't trigger the death sentence?

We need to just do away with this barbaric practice all together. The error rate is too high, the cost is too high, and vengeance is not the purpose of the justice system.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on the error rate being too high. I scanned this link, though, and unless I missed it it talked a lot about errors, but not what kind of errors. Even I have to question the 41%, at least in terms of wrongful conviction of people who are factually innocent. I suspect that the 41% includes procedural and/or technical legal errors, which to me isn't the same issue.
 
radcen said:
You're simply flat-out wrong, as you are willfully choosing to ignorantly ignore the murderer who never got caught in the cases of wrongful conviction, but you seem to revel in your wrongness, so I'll leave you to it.
Click to expand...

I'll concede that you could have a serial killer repeatedly plant evidence and get innocent people convicted multiple times. However, I again emphasize analysis of the probabilities of events happening. The chances of that happening pales in comparison to the odds of a true killer getting out and killing again. I've provided links to multiple cases to support my side, including many after the significant advances in forensic science. Let's see your evidence that more people are wrongfully convicted of murder over the last 20 years than the number of second chance murders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom