Capital Punishment

Dutch said:

I oppose capital punishment for a number of reasons. BTW just why isn't there a no way in hell option? Ya' wanna' be fair donja'?

Click to expand...

It was a "rigged" poll, a too frequent occurrence here.
A "conservative" against the death penalty ??
I'll have to to some mind alterations , excuse me while I break out my pipe wrenches...

Ikari said:

Because we have jails. And they've gotten pretty dang good. Not a whole lot of escapes these day. The problem with the death penalty is the penalty of failure. The failure of the death penalty is that people innocent of the charged crime are killed. And the more you use it, the more innocents you'll get caught up to it. Because the penalty of failure is so large with the death penalty, and because our jail systems have become very good that once a person is behind bars they effectively pose no threat to society, there is no longer a need to execute people. There's no rational reasoning behind it anymore.

Click to expand...

What are your thoughts then, on release of prisoners due to overcrowding. How about the release of violent offenders who have had almost no rehabilitation and the recidivism rate?

In a 15 State study, over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years

Rearrest within 3 years
67.5% of prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years, an increase over the 62.5% found for those released in 1983

The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:
- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders

The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994).

Click to expand...

Bureau of Justice Statistics Reentry Trends in the U.S.: Recidivism

Ikari said:

Because we have jails. And they've gotten pretty dang good. Not a whole lot of escapes these day. The problem with the death penalty is the penalty of failure. The failure of the death penalty is that people innocent of the charged crime are killed. And the more you use it, the more innocents you'll get caught up to it. Because the penalty of failure is so large with the death penalty, and because our jail systems have become very good that once a person is behind bars they effectively pose no threat to society, there is no longer a need to execute people. There's no rational reasoning behind it anymore.

Click to expand...

Being a threat to society is not the only reason to remove someone from it. There's this thing called justice, ever heard of it? And honestly, putting someone in prison has just as many risks, more in fact, of punishing an innocent as the death penalty does. I don't care if you can let them out, no amount of money can compensate someone for years of their life spent rotting in a hole. So let's not punish anyone, we might make a mistake! Oh noes!

Catz Part Deux said:

Some people need killing.

Click to expand...

Who gets to decide? The government? Me? I hope it's me.

TheGirlNextDoor said:

What are your thoughts then, on release of prisoners due to overcrowding. How about the release of violent offenders who have had almost no rehabilitation and the recidivism rate?

Click to expand...

Done and done. In Colorado we threw out all our non-violent criminals. Been pretty ok for us. We also have one of the strictest rules for using the death penalty in the nation. It's ok, I prefer not to have it; but if you're going to have one our system is probably the best way to implement it.

Cephus said:

Being a threat to society is not the only reason to remove someone from it. There's this thing called justice, ever heard of it? And honestly, putting someone in prison has just as many risks, more in fact, of punishing an innocent as the death penalty does. I don't care if you can let them out, no amount of money can compensate someone for years of their life spent rotting in a hole. So let's not punish anyone, we might make a mistake! Oh noes!

Click to expand...

You done? Or will we have to suffer more of this stupidity? I know what justice is. It does suck that innocent people will get sent to jail, but at least they're still alive instead of being dead. If they're alive and innocent, they'll at least have some hope of making a case to get out. If they're dead and it's found out that they were innocent...well no amount of money can compensate the family for the life the State took.

At no point did I say scrap the judicial system or that we shouldn't punish anyone. I said that because of the penalty of failure of the death penalty is so large, and because our jail systems have become very good, that the death penalty is no longer necessary. Please read and comprehend before you run your mouth with such baloney hyperbole as what you spewed forth here.

Andalublue said:

I believe that it is wrong to kill. Full stop. Period.

I notice that in the poll you don't offer anyone the option of flat out disagreeing with CapPun. Why's that?

Click to expand...

Then stop eating, cause you're eating something that use to live.

Is it being stated that no matter how horrific the crime, the criminal is to escape mortal judgment in favor for staying in jail? Is it true jail life is better than the past, complete with televisions, internet access, and gyms?

Ikari said:

Done and done. In Colorado we threw out all our non-violent criminals. Been pretty ok for us. We also have one of the strictest rules for using the death penalty in the nation. It's ok, I prefer not to have it; but if you're going to have one our system is probably the best way to implement it.

Click to expand...

I was waiting for someone to mention that jailing more people doesn't automatically create a safer society. Were that the case then the US would have to lowest rates of criminal activity because it has the highest per capita prison population in the World. Similarly, having the DP has little bearing on the level of serious and violent crime. This being the case, the discussion can only really be conducted on the ethical and moral level, since criminologically speaking, you can make a case in both directions.

American said:

Then stop eating, cause you're eating something that use to live.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you weren't expecting me to debate your fatuous point.

Ikari said:

You done? Or will we have to suffer more of this stupidity?

Click to expand...

I don't know, when do you plan on stopping?

I know what justice is. It does suck that innocent people will get sent to jail, but at least they're still alive instead of being dead. If they're alive and innocent, they'll at least have some hope of making a case to get out. If they're dead and it's found out that they were innocent...well no amount of money can compensate the family for the life the State took.

At no point did I say scrap the judicial system or that we shouldn't punish anyone. I said that because of the penalty of failure of the death penalty is so large, and because our jail systems have become very good, that the death penalty is no longer necessary. Please read and comprehend before you run your mouth with such baloney hyperbole as what you spewed forth here.

Click to expand...

The fact remains that money can never compensate for time or life lost. Pretending that someone can be compensated for losing the best years of their lives in a hole is ludicrous. Please stop being ludicrous.

I find the options in this poll to be odd, since both "support" and "condone" have roughly the same meaning here, and "oppose" is not even an option.

However, moving on. I believe the death penalty has it's place, when the crime is so heinous and guilt so obvious as to remove all doubt. I'm talking serial killers with the bodies of their myriad victims found buried in the basement of the suspects house. That kind of heinous, that kind of obvious.

To my mind the death penalty is used far too often, and is too frequently asked for by prosecutors who either want to advance their own careers and status, or need the death penalty as leverage to coerce defendents to accept a plea bargain. Death row inmates are being exhonorated by DNA evidence. That alone is enough to stand back and say, "waitaminute, innocent people on death row? We're doing something wrong here."

The death penalty is overused, in my opinion, and I do not have a single doubt that innocent people have been executed.

I support it, but in more restricted circumstances than those in which it is commonly applied. There need to be standards of evidence, beyond those required for mere conviction of a capital crime, that would allow the death penalty to be imposed. This, because there's no way to take it back or compensate the person who is executed wrongly. And I do think it is inevitable that we have surely executed people who were innocent.

On the other hand, if we could be 100% certain that our convictions were sound, I would support the death penalty for a wider array of crimes than those typically considered for it. Folks like Jeff Skilling and Dennis Kozlowski should be on death row, IMO. They ruined many people's lives. Serial rapists and kidnappers are another breed that I think we could do without.

Cephus said:

The fact remains that money can never compensate for time or life lost. Pretending that someone can be compensated for losing the best years of their lives in a hole is ludicrous. Please stop being ludicrous.

Click to expand...

I didn't pretend that money could do either. You're the one who brought it up. Try to remember your own arguments please. I said that the difference is between one being dead and one being able to finally be vindicated and being freed. Please stop being ludicrous.

Ikari said:

I didn't pretend that money could do either. You're the one who brought it up. Try to remember your own arguments please. I said that the difference is between one being dead and one being able to finally be vindicated and being freed. Please stop being ludicrous.

Click to expand...

If one is dead and vindicated, or one is an old man and vindicated, it doesn't change the facts that they can never be compensated for their losses. Personally, I'd rather be dead than spend my life behind bars wrongly. YMMV.

Cephus said:

If one is dead and vindicated, or one is an old man and vindicated, it doesn't change the facts that they can never be compensated for their losses. Personally, I'd rather be dead than spend my life behind bars wrongly. YMMV.

Click to expand...

Well then you can commit suicide in your cell. It is unfortunate that innocent people will get caught up from time to time in the judicial system. That's just a product of living in the real world. We have to have some form of judicial system and jails. However, the consequences of failure for the death penalty are far worse than the consequences of failure for throwing someone in jail. We don't really need the death penalty anymore, it is cheaper to keep a criminal locked up for life than it is to let them rot on death row. The increased consequence of failure, the increase in money necessary to have the DP, and the fact that our jail system has become very sophisticated and thus once jailed there is little chance of escape all come together to mean that we do not need the death penalty anymore. It would be best to stop using it. But if you're not going to stop, then the method such as the one used in Colorado should be adopted.

Ikari said:

Well then you can commit suicide in your cell. It is unfortunate that innocent people will get caught up from time to time in the judicial system. That's just a product of living in the real world. We have to have some form of judicial system and jails. However, the consequences of failure for the death penalty are far worse than the consequences of failure for throwing someone in jail. We don't really need the death penalty anymore, it is cheaper to keep a criminal locked up for life than it is to let them rot on death row. The increased consequence of failure, the increase in money necessary to have the DP, and the fact that our jail system has become very sophisticated and thus once jailed there is little chance of escape all come together to mean that we do not need the death penalty anymore. It would be best to stop using it. But if you're not going to stop, then the method such as the one used in Colorado should be adopted.

Click to expand...

It is only cheaper because a death row inmate can keep charging their endless appeals to the state, whether there is any basis for making an appeal or not. Get rid of meaningless appeals, those which do not claim the demonstrable innocence of the criminal, and the DP will be downright cheap.

But hey, we don't expect you to acknowledge reality. You never have before, why start now?

Capital Punishment should fit the crime, IE if you murder someone and your found guilty, guess what..its time to die.

Cephus said:

It is only cheaper because a death row inmate can keep charging their endless appeals to the state, whether there is any basis for making an appeal or not. Get rid of meaningless appeals, those which do not claim the demonstrable innocence of the criminal, and the DP will be downright cheap.

Click to expand...

If you streamline the process, you're only going to exacerbate the problem. Those appeals are there in order to ensure that the number of innocent people caught up can be minimized. You want to take out the safety interlocks so that it costs less money?

Cephus said:

But hey, we don't expect you to acknowledge reality. You never have before, why start now?

Click to expand...

Nice. One day perhaps you can act like an adult during a debate.

chevydriver1123 said:

Capital Punishment should fit the crime, IE if you murder someone and your found guilty, guess what..its time to die.

Click to expand...

So no person has ever been wrongly convicted of murder, eh?

Cephus said:

It is only cheaper because a death row inmate can keep charging their endless appeals to the state, whether there is any basis for making an appeal or not. Get rid of meaningless appeals, those which do not claim the demonstrable innocence of the criminal, and the DP will be downright cheap.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how anyone can be so cavelier about life and death. If we are going to insist on using the death penalty, then we damn well owe to ourselves and those on trial to be as sure as possible that 1) the trial was fair and legal and 2) we're executing the right person.

I used rail about the endless appeals and how it was a waste of time and money. Then I started paying attention to the death penalty here in my state. HALF of the death row inmates were exonerate on appeal. At least one was within a few days of his execution. Thank God for those endless appeals or Illinois would've executed an innocent man.

And that is my problem with the death penalty. I don't think its cruel or barbaric. There are plenty of people who clearly deserve to die. People that are so vile and evil the only thing they are owed is a swift death. The nutjob who shot Represenative Giffords comes to mind. John Wayne Gacy. Ted Bundy. Jeffery Dahmer. Osamn Bin Laden. The creators of American Idol. I have no problem with these scumbags being executed by the state.

Heck, if I had a 100% guarantee on the guilt of the condemned, I'd happily EXPAND the death penalty to include violent rapists and all pedophiles. The problem is we don't have that guarantee. We have a system run by imperfect human beings. We do occassionally convict an innocent man. That is bad enough, but if they are sent to jail, they can at least be freed and given restitution. Once they are executed, there is no way to make that right. It's irreversable and the very real possibility of innocent blood being spilled makes me oppose the death penalty. Especially when you consider there is no proven benefit like being an effective deterrent or even cost efficient (given the need for a thorough appeals process).

Psychoclown said:

I don't understand how anyone can be so cavelier about life and death. If we are going to insist on using the death penalty, then we damn well owe to ourselves and those on trial to be as sure as possible that 1) the trial was fair and legal and 2) we're executing the right person.

Click to expand...

And certainly we should do our best and if we make mistakes, learn from them. But let's be realistic here. We're human. We do make mistakes. We're not perfect. This is true of everything we do. We can't let the chance that we're going to make a mistake cause us to shiver in our boots every time we go out to do something. Yes, it's a bad thing if we execute an innocent. It's a bad thing if we put an innocent in prison. That's life though. We are never going to be perfect and if that's the only standard we're willing to accept, we're just wasting our time. It won't happen.

So let's do our best in all that we do, constantly learn from our mistakes and improve at every opportunity. We won't ever make perfection, but we'll keep getting better every day. That's all we can logically ask for.

Exactly, and I think we've learned that with the sophistication we have in our society and judicial system; that we can get along just fine without a death penalty. If we don't really need it, then there's no point in using it considering the failure mode of the death penalty.

Cephus said:

So let's do our best in all that we do, constantly learn from our mistakes and improve at every opportunity. We won't ever make perfection, but we'll keep getting better every day. That's all we can logically ask for.

Click to expand...

Apart from refraining from employing drastic measures whose consequences are irreparable if it later transpires we've made a mistake.

Our justice system isn't perfect, so I can't support capital punishment, because the risk of killing an innocent person is not a risk society should take.

I am sure this has already been said.

How can you have an intelligent debate on a subject when the person framing the question cannot even be bothered to include "oppose it" as an option and so we have to vote "other" as if opposing it is some obscure position?

So you have "support" and "condone", but no "oppose" or "disagree".

Pathetic.