• 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 modify how the death penalty is applied?

What would you do about the death penalty?

  • Total voters
    73
I'm not opposed to it, but pragmatically I realize the anti lawyers have one. Some states spend upwards of $20,000,000 on legal fees to execute an inmate. It's not worth it. Deny the lawyers their money and just lock em up for life. Even at $30k a year for incarceration we are tax wise better off.
 
Our judicial system is never going to consistently rule on who should live and who should die for their crimes, so even if you think people deserve to die and the state has a right to kill them for their crimes, which is a barbaric concept, there is no logical reason to support the death penalty, because personal biases mean it will never be completely executed fairly.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
This poll addresses capital punishment both in the states that have it and in the federal government.
Click to expand...

I would modify it.I think the stronger the evidence the less appeals one gets. For example they got someone on video murdering people then that person gets no appeals and is immediately executed after a guilty conviction.If someone is convicted on merely eyewitness testimony and no circumstantial evidence such as fingerprints and etc then I agree that person shouldn't get the death penalty.But if there is eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence then the number of appeals should be based on the how and much and the strength of that evidence.
 
Gringo allstar said:
Let's not forget that many who are tried and convicted of murder who get life sentences continue to kill inside prison.
Click to expand...
At least if they're off the streets, the ****bags can only hurt each other.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Our judicial system is never going to consistently rule on who should live and who should die for their crimes, so even if you think people deserve to die and the state has a right to kill them for their crimes, which is a barbaric concept, there is no logical reason to support the death penalty, because personal biases mean it will never be completely executed fairly.
Click to expand...
Nor shall the crimes which led to their convictions.
 
CalGun said:
I'm not opposed to it, but pragmatically I realize the anti lawyers have one. Some states spend upwards of $20,000,000 on legal fees to execute an inmate. It's not worth it. Deny the lawyers their money and just lock em up for life. Even at $30k a year for incarceration we are tax wise better off.
Click to expand...
Bullets are even cheaper still.
 
Beaudreaux said:
When I was younger, and more emotional, I was ALL FOR the death penalty. However, as I've aged and hopefully become less emotional, as well as the fact that DNA evidence has proven that numerous people have been wrongfully executed and many have been saved from execution by being exonerated prior to the sentence being carried out, I am now against the Death Penalty because if the state executes just one innocent person, then we are no better than the people that we are trying to remove from society by killing them.

Do I think that there are people that should die as a result of their acts? Hell yes, I still do. The problem I have, is that there is no definitive way to apply such a law without the potential of an innocent person being convicted and executed in a tragic and horrific mistake. I'm not willing to live with that possibility.
Click to expand...
Pretty much my point-of-view. We have proven beyond reasonable doubt that we get it wrong way too often. And as long as people on the prosecution side get rewarded for conviction rates over accuracy, it'll never change.
 
Would you modify how the death penalty is applied?

Yes. I would find some way to end frivolous appeals so that in cases where there is no doubt of guilt the sentences could be carried out within a year.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I agree that too many capital cases get convictions just on circumstantial evidence. I also agree that there have been several instances of states executing the wrong person.

Both are totally unacceptable, but the system could still be modified to eliminate those possibilities.

First, if the prosecution plans to seek the death penalty, they must be held to a higher standard of proof. Guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt" is not enough; it should be guilt without a shadow of a doubt. For instance, the killer would likely have to confess, and to provide details that only the person who committed the crime could know.
Click to expand...
There have been many people in the past who were executed that we just knew beyond any doubt were guilty... only to find out later that we were still wrong.

As far as confession and knowing details go, it has also been established that confessions are actually the least reliable of evidence and that police often feed information to suspects. Shoot, there have been some instances where the police literally wrote the confession and had the poor innocent schmuck sign it.
 
Not a very good marksman are ya :)

Its not the cost of the execution its the attorneys prior to the execution that have killed it. Unless you think we can just print money for lawyers and tax ourselves into oblivion for the joy of sticking a needle in a man's arm or firing a 7.62x51 into his heart.

NoC_T said:
Bullets are even cheaper still.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Not a very good marksman are ya :)

Its not the cost of the execution its the attorneys prior to the execution that have killed it. Unless you think we can just print money for lawyers and tax ourselves into oblivion for the joy of sticking a needle in a man's arm or firing a 7.62x51 into his heart.
Click to expand...
I was referring to your comment regarding incarceration.
 
This will work right up until the leftist can sell the public we just executed an innocent man. 60 minutes will probably repeat it, Anderson cooper will visit with his mom, and Fox with his hot wife!


ObamacareFail said:
Would you modify how the death penalty is applied?

Yes. I would find some way to end frivolous appeals so that in cases where there is no doubt of guilt the sentences could be carried out within a year.
Click to expand...
 
Thrilla said:
i'm ok with "beyond a reasonable doubt".. which is the current standard.

i'm also perfectly ok with an appeals and oversight process that objectively analyzes the the verdict , the evidence, and prosecutorial behavior.
Click to expand...

So you would be ok with taking a life when there's the slightest chance you might be killing someone who's innocent?
 
The more that time goes on, the less I support the death penalty. I'm for it in theory, but I don't think that our standards of proof are high enough to make it practical in most cases.
 
TeleKat said:
So you would be ok with taking a life when there's the slightest chance you might be killing someone who's innocent?
Click to expand...

yes...
provided the proper legal mechanisms have been followed before they execute him or her, including an appeals process and possibly an oversight mechanism of the whole ordeal.
 
molten_dragon said:
The more that time goes on, the less I support the death penalty. I'm for it in theory, but I don't think that our standards of proof are high enough to make it practical in most cases.
Click to expand...

the next highest standard of proof is " beyond a shadow of a doubt"... which is an incredibly high standard( some say it's impossible to meet) that does not account for human reasoning.
 
Thrilla said:
yes...
provided the proper legal mechanisms have been followed before they execute him or her, including an appeals process and possibly an oversight mechanism of the whole ordeal.
Click to expand...

Ok. What would be your course of action if, after the execution, it is found out the person was indeed innocent? What you you advocate we do for the family of that victim?
 
Thrilla said:
the next highest standard of proof is " beyond a shadow of a doubt"... which is an incredibly high standard( some say it's impossible to meet) that does not account for human reasoning.
Click to expand...

When someone's life is on the line, I don't think any amount of doubt is acceptable. Especially considering the screwed up jury system we have.

I almost feel like there should be two trials. One with the current standards to determine guilt or innocence. And another with a second jury to determine if guilt is certain enough to put the death penalty on the table.
 
radcen said:
Ok. What would be your course of action if, after the execution, it is found out the person was indeed innocent? What you you advocate we do for the family of that victim?
Click to expand...

I would advocate that the family sue the government for wrongful death , false imprisonment, and human rights violations.... then let the jury decide proper compensation.
if prosecutorial misconduct was shown, i'm all for imprisoning the prosecutor for life after he's convicted of murder.

preferably, an healthy appeals process would occur before the execution.. and i would also advocate an audit of prosecutorial behavior take place as well... hopefully by an non-political objective 3rd party.
 
Death Penalty should stay in place. The whole point of the Judicial system is to give appropriate punishment to crimes committed and some crimes death is the only appropriate punishment.
 
molten_dragon said:
When someone's life is on the line, I don't think any amount of doubt is acceptable. Especially considering the screwed up jury system we have.

I almost feel like there should be two trials. One with the current standards to determine guilt or innocence. And another with a second jury to determine if guilt is certain enough to put the death penalty on the table.
Click to expand...

I dunno.... I think a 2nd trial might be going a bit too far.
I think an automatic audit of death penalty cases is a good thing to do, though.... it can take place in conjunction to the appeals process...

from the time it goes to trial, until the time we pull the plug ( or release the innocent), it should take no longer than 5-7 years...tops
 
DNA isn't a brand new discovery, but people are still being released today based on its evidence which wasn't available at the time of their trial. This wouldn''t be possible if they'd been executed.
It's strange that the same people who hate the idea of government interference in their healthcare provision freely give it the power of life and death over them.
 
Manc Skipper said:
DNA isn't a brand new discovery, but people are still being released today based on its evidence which wasn't available at the time of their trial. This wouldn''t be possible if they'd been executed.
It's strange that the same people who hate the idea of government interference in their healthcare provision freely give it the power of life and death over them.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom