This is why I'm against the death penalty

It's a mathematical certainty that we have executed innocent persons, and will do so again. This outweighs any alleged deterrant value of the death penalty.

 

I agree. I consider myself to hold pretty conservative views on many moral issues, but I have yet to see a persuasive argument in favor of the death penalty.

 

Yes, besides the wrongful execution issue, the bigger issue is the moral one. Does society have a right to take the life of another human? Clearly, execution does not work as a deterrent to murder. Murders do not operate under the same moral code that most people do. They do not see consequences for their actions and many show little if any remorse since life has little meaning or value. So it comes down to the old Code of Hammurabi, an eye for an eye. I don't think a civilized society should operate under the pretext that a murder should be avenged by taking another life. As long as the murderer if sentenced to life in prision without parole, justice is served. The criminal is not free to murder again and society did not have to take another life.

There have also been many studies confirming the belief that the cost of executing an inmate is greater or equal to the cost to feed and house an inmate for life imprisonment. This is based on the length of time inmates typically spend on death row, Typically anywhere from 6-10 years, the cost of the segregated death row facilities and the numerous legal motions filed to grant a stay of execution. Court costs can be astronomical.

 

Leave abortion out of this.

 

Just.

Too.

Easy.

 

You're right...easy!

 

And yet, you make it look so difficult. *I* only had to change one LETTER this time.

[Kevin Spacey in American Beauty]

I *rule*!

[/Kevin Spacey in American Beauty]

Tell you what, iMac, I'll let you keep missing the point like a Buffalo Bills Super Bowl field goal while you continue to screech about the inalienable right of an ectopic pregnancy to kill a woman before her time, and you let me handle the comedy, how about that?

 

A field goal is worth 3 points, not one.

 

Not a mathematical certainty, but it is almost certain. Nevertheless, the advent of DNA evidence makes it highly unlikely that innocent people will be executed in the future, as long as we're careful. I wouldn't support any execution for murder unless the convict is conclusively linked to the murder by DNA evidence (or some other unquestionable evidence of guilt, such as being caught on tape committing the murder or confessing).

Anyway, this is why I'm for the death penalty:




Alex

 

If I can put aside my moral issues with the death penalty, I would agree with you in theory, but it is a whole another matter in practice.

A few things:
- Yes, DNA evidence is as close as we can get to mathematical certainty, but is it tamper proof? I honestly don't know and perhaps you can tell me.
- Confessions have shown to be extremely unreliable. Too often, the police have forced false confessions out of suspects.
- Even with the availability of DNA evidence, suspects are often convicted simply because of inadequate defense or by being railroaded. Once convicted, the onus is on the death row inmate to prove his innocence. DNA can prove guilt, but it won't always prove innocence.

 

I believe in the death penalty as a concept. I'm a God fearing man, but for some reason have no moral qualms about putting to death people who commit heinous crimes, especially against children. The only reservation I have is that the person should die suffering proportionately to the suffering he/she caused. McVeigh would not have simply been injected and fallen asleep if I ran the show.

Having said that, even if disturbing to some, I don't believe that the death penalty can be applied fairly in our society and therefore don't agree that we should have it as a matter of policy. I believe that racism and more prevalently classism determines who dies for their crimes and who gets away with murder.

Until it can be applied fairly, probably never, I don't support capital punishment.

 

I don't know much about it, but from what I hear the chances of a false DNA match are something like 1 in 10 trillion. Again not mathematical certainty, but pretty damn close.

True, and I don't think confessions should always neccesarily be grounds for the death penalty. To tell you the truth, that seemed to me to be the easiest way to include Tim McVeigh in my criteria (for if he didn't deserve the death penalty, who does?)

Yes, which is why DNA testing should be standard practice in capital cases (and all criminal trials, really) where it is applicable.


Alex

 

Without the death penalty, we would not have Johnny Cash singing the song 'The Mercy Seat'. That is a great song.

 

Hey, hey, give credit where credit is due. Nick Cave wrote the song, Johnny only covered it.

 

Coupla things, and I'll make this quick, because based on this post, you're hanging onto Reality by a fingernail:

(1) The death penalty would have to be expanded to encompass a whole lot more crimes, the appeals process would have to be scaled way back, and we'd have to be running the needles like sewing machines and have the kill rate somewhere up around Buchenwald before we make a dent in the prison population.

(2) I'm a bit ahead of most of the Democratic Party on this one, but I do have a solution - well, Bob Marley had a solution, and I'm just copying it. Legalize It. Non-violent drug offenders have no business being in the prison population.

(3) Kinda would suck to be accused of being a murdering child molestor and get strapped into Chitty Chitty Bang Bang when you're innocent, only to find out that Mike Segroves is more concerned about providing bunk space in the State Hotel than making sure you're actually guilty.

(4) I seem to remember something about Timothy McVeigh not being able to answer questions about, say, how much help Iraq or al-Qaeda might or might not have given him. This is the point I'm least comfortable with, as it would assume that if we catch Osama, we're better off keeping him alive for future reference. This is probably true on a practical level, but I'm not going to tell a 9/11 survivor that, and I'm not sure I believe it myself. Still, Tim was brought up, so I thought I'd make the point.

 

How about guys like John Wayne Gacy, who had about 30 kids burried in his basement? Is that enough proof?

I'm not really in favor of the death penalty when it comes to the average bastard who shoots someone while robbing a store (although I can sympathize with the family of the victim who would want him dead), but for the Gacy's, Ted Bundy's, Robert Alton Harris' of the world, I'd be happy to pull the switch on them.

 

Dear Mr. Loney:

You will hear from my lawyers in the morning.

Jah Love,

The Estate Of Peter Tosh

 

There's a saying in legal circles that "hard cases make bad law." John Wayne Gacy and Osama bin Laden and their ilk are the far, far end of the bell curve. The same impulse that drives us to want to get the bastards that did their crimes drives us to want to similarly "get" the perpetrators of crimes when the guilt is less obvious.

To assume that the death penalty for only the most clear-cut and heinous cases is a good option assumes that politicans would never expand the death penalty in order to appear tougher on crime than their opponents. It assumes that cops would never plant evidence or coerce a confession when they were rushed to capture someone for a highly publicized crime. It assumes that prosecutors don't get judged by their ability to prosecute people for those same highly publicized crimes. And it assumes that prosecutors and cops will be friendly and cooperative when appelate lawyers and journalists start nosing around the mistakes they've made.

Does any of that sound terribly likely to you?

 

It's also a mathematical certainty that innocent people have spent their entire adult lives in prison, which is a worse punishment for an innocent person as far as I'm concerned. Of course, there is always a chance that a prisoner will be exonerated, but if we're thinking in terms of statistics, many will not.

I'm against the death penalty, but not for that reason. I must confess to not caring a great deal about this issue as it affects a small number of people, few of whom are worthy of much sympathy.

 

I'm against the death penalty, but I find this logic completely unpersuasive.

 

"An eye for an eye" was a major leap forward in ethics. It was not about revenge, but that punishments shouldn't exceed crimes.

 

What I was asking is, if someone on the prosecution side were motivated tamper with the evidence, could they? That seems to present a danger in treating DNA as the fail safe evidence in murder trials.

Given the alarming number of convicts who are later exonerated based on DNA evidence, and the finality of the death penalty, would you agree that DNA evidence should be a requirement for capital punishment?

----
Now, I also have doubts about the merit of death penalty as a deterrent. Would we see an increase in the mudre rate if we were to repeal the death penalty? Or take Illinois and Wisconsin. The former has death penalty, the latter does not. Do a significant number of muderers-to-be in Illinois say, "Oh gee golly, I just remembered I can be executed for killing my wife. I'll drive to Wisconsin and off the bitch there"?
If someone can show me that this happens then I will concede that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against homicide.

 

At the risk of sounding hokey...