Is Capital Punishment Justified?

Cephus said:

Which was done in the original trial, then it was done again in the mandatory appeal. That's twice. How many times do we have to prove it? How many frivolous appeals do we have to permit before we say enough and execute the criminal? That's where the cost comes in, not the execution itself.

Click to expand...

Nolt necessarily. Furthermore, the string of releases from death row since the 70s is pretty telling that trials, or at least the first one is not exactly reliable and that new evidence can spring those from jail. The Supreme Court itself stated that there was inherent racial bias in who gets the chair and who gets thrown in prison for life. Not to mention that more then a few had their key witness changes their story from the original trial to the appeal. The whole process is a mine field if you look at it historically. We really should make it so expensive that only those who truly need to be removed are spent the money on. The death penalty in principle isn't a bad concept.

obvious Child said:

The Supreme Court itself stated that there was inherent racial bias in who gets the chair and who gets thrown in prison for life.

Click to expand...

That's not a reason to stop the death penalty, but to fix the legal process, which is a tremendous mess right now. Besides, I think we need to eliminate LWOP anyhow, if you're going to get thrown in prison for the rest of your life with no chance of ever getting out, why not just kill 'em and clear the prison space for someone else?

Cephus said:

That's not a reason to stop the death penalty, but to fix the legal process, which is a tremendous mess right now.

Click to expand...

Well, how do you fix the issues of juries? In Furman VS Georgia the court noted that a black man who committed the same crime as a white man was something like 50% more likely to get the chair. That's pretty frightening.

Besides, I think we need to eliminate LWOP anyhow, if you're going to get thrown in prison for the rest of your life with no chance of ever getting out, why not just kill 'em and clear the prison space for someone else?

Click to expand...

Is white collar crime worthy of the death penalty? Bernard J. Ebbers is going to jail for life for accounting fraud. Is his crime worthy of execution?

obvious Child said:

Well, how do you fix the issues of juries? In Furman VS Georgia the court noted that a black man who committed the same crime as a white man was something like 50% more likely to get the chair. That's pretty frightening.

Click to expand...

I've already said the entire legal system is a disaster. Juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury service, they are easily manipulated by shyster lawyers and are often selected specifically because they are seen as easy to manipulate. The best immediate solution would be a move to professional juries, people who get paid to sit on juries, who are unbiased, who are not racist or classist, who are not completely scientifically illiterate and who are dedicated to finding the truth, not just which lawyer talks fastest.

Secondly, we need to shift the legal profession away from defending the client to seeing justice be done. Currently, lawyers lie, cheat and steal and do anything they can to convince a jury that their client didn't do it, even if they know for a fact that he did.

Third, I'd like to see some form of manditory sentencing that would stop racist sentences like the above. If two people commit the same crime, they get the same sentence, no matter what color they are, how much money they have or who they know. The only thing that matters is the crime, nothing more.

Yes, I know it's an uphill battle to get that, especially when the people you need to convince are the lawyers who currently benefit from the system as it is today. Why do we keep creating systems where we let the inmates run the asylum and can only put them back into their cells with their consent?

Is white collar crime worthy of the death penalty? Bernard J. Ebbers is going to jail for life for accounting fraud. Is his crime worthy of execution?

Click to expand...

I don't know the specifics of the case, in general terms I would say no though, the death penalty should be reserved for murderers, but that's a personal opinion. However, just pointing to one questionable case doesn't in any way disprove the usefullness of capital punishment overall.

Cephus said:

I've already said the entire legal system is a disaster. Juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury service, they are easily manipulated by shyster lawyers and are often selected specifically because they are seen as easy to manipulate. The best immediate solution would be a move to professional juries, people who get paid to sit on juries, who are unbiased, who are not racist or classist, who are not completely scientifically illiterate and who are dedicated to finding the truth, not just which lawyer talks fastest.

Click to expand...

Finding those people and ensuring that they are such is going to be pretty hard.

Secondly, we need to shift the legal profession away from defending the client to seeing justice be done. Currently, lawyers lie, cheat and steal and do anything they can to convince a jury that their client didn't do it, even if they know for a fact that he did.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, most of the lawyers representing death row inmates are public defenders who don't have a stake in that. Unlike in civil court where they can get huge payoffs for winning, public defenders have set salaries. There really isn't incentive to lie, cheat and steal for them.

The only thing that matters is the crime, nothing more

Click to expand...

This might be the case now.

I don't know the specifics of the case, in general terms I would say no though, the death penalty should be reserved for murderers, but that's a personal opinion. However, just pointing to one questionable case doesn't in any way disprove the usefullness of capital punishment overall.

Click to expand...

I never intended that. The CEO of Worldcom was an example of whether or not we should execute those who are going to die in prison anyways as you suggested even for non-violent crimes. Is cooking the books worthy of execution like serial murder?

The best comment I heard was by a police officer who said that in his opinion there are two justifications of capital punishment.

1. It does NOT deter anyone from committing a murder and is not a deterrent in that regards. However, it is a deterrent to that person ever committing murder again. People are murdered in prison by murderers.

2. Our society demands a person not take law into their own hands, to instead allow society to undertake just punishment. Therefore, society should do so.

I just heard last week that a person who had murdered 7 people was being released on parole. How is that justice? Society didn't do its task.

If an individual can kill another person in self defense or defense of another, so then should the government.

I don't think "murder" is the trigger for capital punishment. Rather, it is the level of brutality and the lack of humanity the criminal exhibited. A person robbing a store in a panic shooting the clerk is terrible. But it is not as terrible as the man who raped a woman in the desert and then chopped off her arms with an ax - though she lived. The latter one is more deserving of death and the more a future danger to everyone. The death penalty should be reserved for mad dogs who found pleasure in extreme violent and multilating acts of sadism.

I also believe in banishment.

Bonnie1988 said:

If an individual can kill another person in self defense or defense of another, so then should the government.

Click to expand...

Good point. In direct defense of a person (self or otherwise), killing can be acceptable.

But in retaliation (which is what the Death penalty really is), nobody is allowed to kill, and IMO that "nobody" should include the government.

Nobody is allowed to kill another person in POTENTIAL defense, which is what argument #1 is calling for.

Argument #2 is just the vengeance argument reworded.



And I would say that anyone who is convicted of murder should never be released. Why allow them to become recidivist?

Tucker Case said:

Good point. In direct defense of a person (self or otherwise), killing can be acceptable.

But in retaliation (which is what the Death penalty really is), nobody is allowed to kill, and IMO that "nobody" should include the government.

Nobody is allowed to kill another person in POTENTIAL defense, which is what argument #1 is calling for.

Argument #2 is just the vengeance argument reworded.



And I would say that anyone who is convicted of murder should never be released. Why allow them to become recidivist?

Click to expand...

It is ok to have murderers live long in prison because you only care if people not in prison are protected, but its ok to subject people in prison to murderers?

Do your think that really is possible within human nature? Can we outlaw core humanity? The emotional humanity? Is retaliation always immoral even?

In my instance, some of the men outright told him if he ever came back they will take him out in one of the swamps and kill him - so don't come back. The sheriff's department (no city police) told him they had a duty to protect him but given how remote, rural etc it is unlikely they could. Why did the men tell him this? Self protection of everyone in the community.

This is a very friendly and live-and-let-live community. They ignore "victimless crimes" (like drug laws) as long as they remain victimless. But is also is essentially a zero crime area - literally disbanded the police department years ago. The very rare crimes that happen they claim are always by outsiders.

That was so in my case also. The lack of crime is many reasons including higher levels of economics, sense of community, alarms, everyone knows and looking out for everyone, lots of guns, a very strong "castle doctrine" and - I suspect - the occasional disappearances in the swamp justice history that dates back to the beginning.

Unfortunately, our legal system doesn't protect people from crime. It only attempts (often doesn't) to punish the person after the fact for a limited time in jail. Punishment doesn't in any way erase what the victim(s) went through.

People are not solely logical creatures. They are also emotionally driven. Law can only go so far in controlling emotions. I'll give an extreme theoretical example...

A man who had murdered your child who "served his time" is in line with you at a grocery store. You and your wife were never able to have another child. The man looks at you, smiles and says, "well, seems I did my part for population control. Your daughter sure was a pretty little thing. Wish you could see the look on her face and have heard her screams while I was stabbing her."

Law allows nothing but a verbal response from you.

Is that anywhere near real?

I was just involved in a criminal case in which the DA asked what I wanted in the sentencing. What I wanted was banishment of the person from my life in every possible way while in and after release from prison. That mattered
far more to me than how long he would be in prison. Punishment of him didn't matter to me because it did nothing for me whatsoever. The ONLY interest I had in prison was prison assured he was out of my life. What mattered is him out of my life and also not forcing anyone else to constrain themselves in relation to him.

My list was very long and the court ordered all of it as conditions while in prison, conditions for eligibility for future parole and parole conditions. These included (nor is all of them)that he never state my name except in court proceedings, that he never come within 100 miles of my residence nor within 100 yards of any of my relatives or my boyfriend (by name), and no direct or indirect contact of any kind. It also ordered in the event of a child he has exactly no parental rights of any kind nor can claim parentage.

To me it wasn't how long he was in prison, but how long those terms could be imposed is what mattered. The sentencing specified the maximum jail term - a relatively short time (very short), but also imposed the absolute maximum allowed in law for the offense - which is life - for the terms of banishment. He received far less prison time in exchange for life long banishment from my life and the community. That protects me, everyone and even him.

Seriously, if I looked up and he was on the other side of the front door, is it anywhere realistic that I would say "hi, how ya doing?" to him? Or is it just gut human nature - unavoidable, uncontrollable - that I'd instantly open up on him with a .357 - later POSSIBLY deciding that was an over reaction?

If instead my boy friend came to the door and he was there, what is a realistic response he would (or even should) have? Now just continuously worry if he's out in the woods around our house? Never again go outside alone? Live in constant fear imprisoned in our house?

I do believe societal retaliation is justifiable and called for. Prison is a retaliation, any punishment is. Most people want Osama Bin Ladin dead. Is there a contradiction in that?

Does this slogan work? "Just because someone illegally imprisoned you, that doesn't justify society imprisoning that person." That is the same slogan for anti-death penalty. Isn't a life sentence with no possibility of parole also inhumane?

Do you agree with the principle of banishment?

I'm not actually discussing th emorality of it. It's just not the govenremtn's job to retaliate.

And I think prison should only be used to remove a danger from the general population, which is what it really is used for, not as punishment.

Punishment serves no logical purpose, and is not what the governemtn should concern itself with.


As far as personal retaliation, I was speaking about it being illegal, not immoral. In fact, in some cases personal retaliation is perfectly alright with me. I might kill someone who killed my child.

If I were deemed a threat to the population for that, then I should be removed from the general population for that. But if it were deemed that I was not a threat to the population over that act, then I should NTO be removed formteh general population for it.

My theory is that peopole who are a denger to th epopulation should be removed from the general population fo rht eduiration that they remain a threat.

If that means the remainder of their existence, so be it.

I don't argure for incarceration as a punishment. I argue for incarceration as a preventative against the general population.

As far as deterents for lesser crimes, theft and such, I'm in favor of canings. An asswhooping is more effective than anything else for changing negative behavior.

Reapeat offenses get incarcerated for the length of time they are deemed to be a threat.

Tucker Case said:

I'm not actually discussing th emorality of it. It's just not the govenremtn's job to retaliate.

And I think prison should only be used to remove a danger from the general population, which is what it really is used for, not as punishment.

Punishment serves no logical purpose, and is not what the governemtn should concern itself with.


As far as personal retaliation, I was speaking about it being illegal, not immoral. In fact, in some cases personal retaliation is perfectly alright with me. I might kill someone who killed my child.

If I were deemed a threat to the population for that, then I should be removed from the general population for that. But if it were deemed that I was not a threat to the population over that act, then I should NTO be removed formteh general population for it.

My theory is that peopole who are a denger to th epopulation should be removed from the general population fo rht eduiration that they remain a threat.

If that means the remainder of their existence, so be it.

I don't argure for incarceration as a punishment. I argue for incarceration as a preventative against the general population.

As far as deterents for lesser crimes, theft and such, I'm in favor of canings. An asswhooping is more effective than anything else for changing negative behavior.

Reapeat offenses get incarcerated for the length of time they are deemed to be a threat.

Click to expand...

I agree with the distinction between illegality and morality.

I don't think our society would ever allow corporal punishment for crime as "cruel and unusual punishment." However, out in society is fear of corporal (violent) retaliation that keeps many people in check. My BF is very big on using potential corporal punishment (fear of him beating the hell out of the other guy) to keep people getting out of line back in line at the bar he sings and works at very effectively.

One reason message boards can go so out of wack with trolls is there is no fear of corporal retaliation or response.

Statutory Ignorance

"Statutory Ignorance"

Bonnie1988 said:

It also ordered in the event of a child he has exactly no parental rights of any kind nor can claim parentage.

Click to expand...

IMO you do not have a legal leg on which to stand.

With the ceded suspicion that he produced a child, at age eighteen the childs records will be unsealed and he may pursue paternal contact.

obvious Child said:

Finding those people and ensuring that they are such is going to be pretty hard.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that, I think you can find people who are well-educated and can be shown to be generally unbiased, which is a damn sight better than we have in the current jury system.

As I understand it, most of the lawyers representing death row inmates are public defenders who don't have a stake in that. Unlike in civil court where they can get huge payoffs for winning, public defenders have set salaries. There really isn't incentive to lie, cheat and steal for them.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the death row defenders, I meant the legal system in general. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I never intended that. The CEO of Worldcom was an example of whether or not we should execute those who are going to die in prison anyways as you suggested even for non-violent crimes. Is cooking the books worthy of execution like serial murder?

Click to expand...

As I said before, in my opinion it isn't if you're going to sentence someone specifically to death, but from a purely practical standpoint, anyone who is never going to get out of prison for any reason is just wasting prison space that could be better put to use for a criminal that might actually get something out of incarceration.

Re: Statutory Ignorance

Monk-Eye said:

"Statutory Ignorance"

IMO you do not have a legal leg on which to stand.

With the ceded suspicion that he produced a child, at age eighteen the childs records will be unsealed and he may pursue paternal contact.

Click to expand...

You might be right if it was otherwise an established fact he is the biological father, but there are exactly none.

His name will appear on exactly no records of my child whatsoever. There are and will be exactly no records nor any dna tests to even obtain so there would be nothing to build a case on. The birth certificate will identify the father and not as him - a man I live with, own a house with and in a sexual relationship with. No fact ever has been established or will be established in any record of any linkage whatsoever. No "child records" will contradict parentage.

When released he will be on parole literally for life and that question has already been adjudicated. Even in normal circumstances, I doubt any court would allow a man to obtain a court order for a dna sample against an 18 year old with exactly nothing other than a claim he had sex with the 18 year old's mother 2 decades ago as the basis - even if consentual. In general, courts
don't give rapists parental rights even if parentage is established - which is not nor any basis to do so.

Nor would he likely care to try nor to risk trying as doing so would violate his terms of parole - all terms he agreed to and then were ordered (not only by the criminal court but ratified by a civil court) so essentially he already lost in court. He would literally be asking a civil court 2 decades later to allow contact he was ordered not to make by both a criminal and civil court and with his on-record agreement all only on his theory of parentage based upon aggravated sexual assault. While on parole a person's otherwise normal rights are highly restricted and he would not face a friendly judge.

The only complexity would be if he contacted my daughter as an adult and talked her into a dna test - but then if she were agreeable to contact he wouldn't need a court order anyway.

I doubt any adult would be agreeable to someone showing claiming to be her real biological father because he had raped her mother and therefore it was him, not the man who claimed to be the father that she lived with at the time, was on the birth certificate and was there from her conception to birth. If some convict came to you and told you that he was your real father because he raped you mother decades ago, would you listen and decide that was a man you'd like to get to know better?

If you were that man an on parole on a life sentence a condition of which was never contacting any relative of the victim - which you had agreed to in criminal (and civil) court - would you risk a parole violation hearing claiming
rapist's rights as your case to violate that parole condition? Why?

Lastly he'd have to come here to challenge the existing court orders of two courts. This is not a friendly system here to such as him. Even in court when he made an apologizing statement and that he wished that my BF or myself has shot and killed him at the scene, the judge's exactly statement was "so do I, but since that unfortunately didn't happen, here we all are." A more realistic outcome is the court would make a determination he violated his parole for one reason or another and send him back to prison just for trying.

AKLee said:

Hello there people,

Just a thought here: in many developed regions we see the abolishment of capital punishment as a penalty for any crime. However, there still exists countries that do still exercise the death penalty system (approximately 90 countries) with 38 out of 50 states in the U.S. still endorsing the death penalty.

A major element of the argument will be the value of life: the side that supports capital punishment may argue that abolishing it results in the devaluation of respect for human life as the punishment is not proportionate and as such, does not reflect the significance of the crime. Also, the fact that the punishment is congruent to the crime proves that the system reflects the objective of the judiciary system: to deter.

The side that opposes capital punishment may argue that in the simplest of terms, execution is state-seanctioned killing - how different will taking the life of a killer be than taking the life of an innocent if the main objective is to preserve human life in general? Moreover, who is the judiciary system to have the right to take away one's right to life - the most fundamental of all rights? We all know how prejudice clouds judgement, especially in the fragile glass sheet that is today's society. Social bias makes secularity impossible, making the system unequal and as such, impossible to implement capital punishment in.

So what do you think? Should the use capital punishment be supported or opposed?

-Alex

Click to expand...

The amusing irony in the debate about capital punishment is that it seems the people who are most adamantly against Capital Punishment have no qualms with someone getting an abortion. I wonder why that is?

:2wave:

Truth Detector said:

The amusing irony in the debate about capital punishment is that it seems the people who are most adamantly against Capital Punishment have no qualms with someone getting an abortion. I wonder why that is?

:2wave:

Click to expand...

I wonder how people can support the war in Iraq and not the war in Afghanistan. Or how people who ran away from the war in Vietnam through deferments could be so supportive of the war in Iraq. Oh wait that's right. Two completely different issues. Carry on.

Hatuey said:

I wonder how people can support the war in Iraq and not the war in Afghanistan. Oh wait that's right. Two completely different issues. Carry on.

Click to expand...

Or how people can support the war in Afghanistan but oppose the war in Iraq.

Truth Detector said:

The amusing irony in the debate about capital punishment is that it seems the people who are most adamantly against Capital Punishment have no qualms with someone getting an abortion. I wonder why that is?

:2wave:

Click to expand...

For me it's about who performs the act. I am just as opposed to government mandating abortions.

Bonnie1988 said:

Or how people can support the war in Afghanistan but oppose the war in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Yeah I wonder how it's even remotely possible to have different opinions about different things. I mean I like icecream. But I don't like caramel flavored ice cream. I do however LOVE vanilla. I mean how is it even remotely possible to have a taste based on the issue.

ycareneged

"ycareneged"

Bonnie1988 said:

You might be right if it was otherwise an established fact he is the biological father, but there are exactly none.

Click to expand...

Engaging your situation is not palatable to me on too many levels.

The politically correct narcisists restrain my rabid irritation.

Cruelty By Design

"Cruelty By Design"

Truth Detector said:

The amusing irony in the debate about capital punishment is that it seems the people who are most adamantly against Capital Punishment have no qualms with someone getting an abortion. I wonder why that is? :2wave:

Click to expand...

I am almost certain that theorists on both sides demonstrate a lack of clarity with respect to the institution of rights and the laws of nature.

Hatuey said:

I wonder how people can support the war in Iraq and not the war in Afghanistan. Or how people who ran away from the war in Vietnam through deferments could be so supportive of the war in Iraq. Oh wait that's right. Two completely different issues. Carry on.

Click to expand...

Fascinating argument; so you think supporting war or desertion is the same as killing a baby or capital punishment; how so?

If you are against war on the grounds that people get killed, how can you be okay when an unborn child is killed? If you are against Capital punishment on the grounds that a human gets killed, how can you be okay when an unborn child is killed?

The only thing more profound about your illogical attempts at argument is the irony that you believe you make sense.

Carry on.

Truth Detector said:

The amusing irony in the debate about capital punishment is that it seems the people who are most adamantly against Capital Punishment have no qualms with someone getting an abortion. I wonder why that is?

:2wave:

Click to expand...

There's nothing ironic about it. One is a fully grown human being. It normally has a family and friends. The other is a fetus.

Truth Detector said:

The amusing irony in the debate about capital punishment is that it seems the people who are most adamantly against Capital Punishment have no qualms with someone getting an abortion. I wonder why that is?

:2wave:

Click to expand...

Sure that statement is true. I know many people who are truly pro-life. Anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment, and anti-war. Now that's pro-life.

Re: ycareneged

Monk-Eye said:

"ycareneged"
Engaging your situation is not palatable to me on too many levels.

The politically correct narcisists restrain my rabid irritation.

Click to expand...

THANK YOU.

Truth Detector said:

Fascinating argument; so you think supporting war or desertion is the same as killing a baby or capital punishment; how so?

Click to expand...

I have come to expect no less from you. What we have here is a strawman. I make the case that a person can have different opinions on different issues and you come up with some retarded claim about something I never said. Moving on.

If you are against war on the grounds that people get killed, how can you be okay when an unborn child is killed? If you are against Capital punishment on the grounds that a human gets killed, how can you be okay when an unborn child is killed?

Click to expand...

2nd strawman. I'm against the war on the basis that it's not worth the effort. I'm for the war in Afghanistan on the basis that it is worth the effort. I'm FOR CHOICE on the basis that it's not my business what people decide to do when they get pregnant. I'm against capital punishment on the basis that it's

The only thing more profound about your illogical attempts at argument is the irony that you believe you make sense.

Carry on.

Click to expand...

The only thing more laughable then the black and white world of retarded conservatives is the fact that they actually live in it.

Proceed.