Your thoughts on the death penalty. Are you for or against? Why or why not?

I am against it. I have little confidence that our justice system can and does convict the right people. The only hope we have is that someone might revisit a case some day and free someone based on new evidence. If the death penalty is used, this is not an option.

Against.
1) It’s barbaric, unnecessary, and inefficient.
2) Someone who may be innocent (e.g. Davis) may be killed, which makes the system a murdering one.
3) Scientific research studies indicate it isn’t even more effective as a deterrent to crime than life imprisonment is.
4) My morality says that a system of rules like we have is not a good way to decide whom to kill. I do not morally agree that because someone illegally kills someone else in our legal system, that the killer should die, and especially not the way the legal rules are.

I actually am not totally against all killing. Sometimes I think it is unfortunately the thing to do to prevent worse damage to others, or to sate the rage of the offended. I would place the decision with the victims or the victims’ families, though, and require certainty about the culprit.

Against, and last night’s travesty is one example of why.

I’m totally against it for a bunch of different reasons.

Against.
Period.
For the simple reason that I feel that no human should end the life of another human, no matter what.
Killing someone as punishment because you think it is illegal and totally wrong that someone killed another is just as wrong.

I am against it . Too many questionable convictions and executions.

I am 100% against the death penalty under any circumstances. I don’t see that is is ever ok for anyone to decide who lives and who dies. No matter what I cannot see myself ever getting behind the death penalty.

Totally opposed for all crimes and all criminals.

against,
as many above had said:
too many incorrect convictions,
and you can’t put the life back into someone
if this flaw is found,

not to mention corrupt individuals in our society – not
just the ciminials, but those IN the system

and who deems themselves at sucha high power that they
pick and choose who dies and who gets life in prision.

I dunno, just seems a bit over the top- like when people were hung. just ridiculous.

man. this question has me thinking about green mile now :(

Against for the reasons above.

To quote a comedian:

“Here in Texas, if you murder somebody and there’s witnesses, we’ll kill you back!”

I believe in some cases the death penalty is appropriate, not as a punishment, but rather as a societal self-protection mechanism. In the case of the ultra-violent repeat offender we are forced to remove the offender from society as a matter of self protection. We can choose to incarcerate that individual for as long as (s)he keeps breathing while they die a long lingering death sometimes stretching over decades behind bars or we can administer the ultimate end in a much more efficient manner.

In short, I submit that life imprisonment IS the death penalty. The only difference between a life sentence with no chance of parole and the electric chair is the length of time it takes for the ultimate resolution of the sentence to be completed.

Another recent case was Anthony Graves—a man who was on death row 18 years for a crime he didn’t commit. The government then found a loophole so that they wouldn’t have to pay him any form of compensation.

As a pacifist, I don’t believe that I have the right to be for the death penalty.

I’m against it in practice for the reasons A) some crimes that people are executed for do not deserve execution B) I don’t like the idea of the government being able to kill people and C) innocent people may be wrongly executed.

However, I am a bit conflicted about whether I support it in principle or not. When I hear something about a mass murderer, child murderer, or serial killer executed, I don’t seem to mind that. In my mind, they did deserve it. However I also agree with @YoBob in that I don’t see much difference between life in prison and the death penalty and therefore the death penalty might not even be necessary.

Wow. On a question of almost 100% “against” votes so far, I’m going to commit Fluther suicide and say:
I’m 100% for it, because I believe evil exists and it doesn’t deserve to breathe on my dime.

Let the “you’re a heartless, murdering bitch” remarks commence; I’m not following this for obvious reasons. Flame on.

As a Christian, I think Jesus called us to a higher standard than “eye for an eye.” Protect society, but revenge never tastes as good as you expect it to. Forgiveness is the real way for a victim (or victims family) to become free. Bitter hatred is like a cancer that consumes you from the inside out.

@WillWorkForChocolate No one is here to come down on you. I am just asking for your views.

I’m ambivalent towards it. On the one hand I have absolutely no moral issue executing a unequivocal repeat violent offender, or for that matter persons who willfully commit murder for profit (excluding self defense, hairs could be split here, but I don’t feel it’s necessary to do so for purposes of this answer). Though there are other methods of punishment that would perhaps have greater value to society.

On the other hand I have poor faith in our justice system to fairly/equally/vigorously/fully represent the accused. Nor do I have faith in our penal system to make any genuine/consistent effort to rehabilitate offenders. Nor do I have much faith in society as a whole to accept convicts back into society without undue penalty.

In other words, while I accept there is a place for capital punishment, I believe the path we take to get there is at best questionable and ill-maintained.

Specifically to the Davis case, admittedly I’ve paid little attention to it but, I don’t see it as ground for the indictment of executions but rather the process, and in this case specifically the people, involved.

I am opposed to the death penalty. I do not think the state should engage in killing its citizens.

@WillWorkForChocolate I applaude you, for stating your opinion.

It’s hard to say one way or another sitting on the sidelines. If someone intentionally kills my family then I want them to die, period. YMMV

@rebbel I applaud her, too. But, no one was jumping down her throat. I wanted to hear everyone’s opinion. :)

@Jude It wasn’t directed at you (too), I read what you wrote before (“No one is here to come down on you.”), I just agreed with you and wanted to say to @WillWorkForChocolate that I think it is gutsy.

@rebbel Okay. :)

I am not against it only because I have a very hard time thinking of a fellow human being who has intentionally and in many case quite viciously taken someones life getting 3 meals a day and a warm bed to sleep in for the rest of their God forsaken life.

Plus at least here in the US they get a yummy last meal and nice sleepy shot in the arm for their final check out unlike the brutal and terrifying ending their victim endured.

I guess when I think of a death penalty criminal, I think Dahmer, Gacy, Peterson, child killers and cold heartless mass murderers who IMO forfeited their Right to life the second the made sure their victims heart was no longer beating.

@WillWorkForChocolate and @Cruiser – Are you at all concerned that the state could be killing an innocent person?

I’m against it, as let’s not forget, it is murder.

@tom_g Yes of course. I am much more confident in our legal system today than the lynch mob vigilante justice that has indeed murdered innocent people on death row. Again my support for this level of justice is for me reserved for the clearly guilty murderous scumbags who have destroyed innocent lives.

I think I am against it but every so often a case comes up that makes me doubt my usual beliefs.

@Cruiser – I think I would be open to supporting the death penalty if we were omniscient. But seeing that we are not, and knowing that corruption and mistakes happen, I cannot support it specifically for this reason.

I would rather feed 3 meals per day to 1 million people who have really murdered, raped, and tortured people than send one innocent person to death.

Let me put it in personal terms. There are two types of killing going on when we discuss this topic: killing by the convicted and killing by the state.

If the death penalty is not allowed **, I can be killed by some sociopath, but I cannot be killed by the state.

If the death penalty is allowed **, I can be killed by some sociopath or killed by the state.

There is greater risk to me and my kids if we have the death penalty.

** We are assuming the choices here are life in prison without parole or the death penalty.

@tom_g I agree, and any agreement with the death penalty is always just an emotional knee-jerk reaction, to which I then think about it rationally: That’s so horrible! He should die!

@WillWorkForChocolate Oh please. Seriously. No one cares to do so over that. We know people are for it, so what?

Against it.

@Jude As far as the Davis case…as a casual observer of the debate, I heard that despite the witnesses who recanted their testimony there was substantial other evidence that prevented even the Supreme Court from over ruling the conviction. In our society the killing of a Law Enforcement Officer is the death penalty.

I find it interesting that statistically here in the US the death penalty is supported 2:1 over those against it. Sure doesn’t reflect that here.

Sweet holy moly, I am against the death penalty because no one has the right to take another’s life. It is not justice but state sanctioned vengeance. If it is such a great thing they are doing in my name, do it like this nation started; at high noon and public for all to see. Those carrying out the state sanctioned killing would be out in the open for all to see, same as the men who put the noose around the neck of the soon to be hung. Be a man, don’t be some punk coward sneaking around in the middle of the night in secret to ”do your duty”.

Completely against it. I have no problems with killing someone in the attempt to apprehend a criminal or stop a violent crime (assuming the person is actively threatening/harming innocents or law enforcement). However, once the perp is in custody, then that person is no longer a danger to society. Killing the person then serves no purpose other than bloodlust.

I used to be in favor of it, but our legal system fucks up so often I can’t support it. When one state has 13 people on death row that are exonerated by DNA or other evidence, it makes me wonder how many innocent people have been killed. And it’s kind of hard to correct the situation after the fact.

I am not against it, but only agree with it in very extreme cases. We would have to be sure the person committed the murder, and I would have to consider impossible to rehabilitate, and how the murders were committed.

However, I am disgusted, like so many have mentioned here, at the way the legal system works, and that possibly innocent men have been and might be killed. The idea that a DA might not be willing to do a DNA test, when there is evidence that can be tested, to possibly demonstrate innocence, and to say he was found guilty by a jury so he must be guilty, is unconscionable to me.

Against.
1. Because there can never be 100% certainty of guilt.
2. Prejudice against the accused increases probability of false convictions.
2.b. Deliberate selection of Jury members that are prejudiced against the accused and dismissal of potential jury members that are not by prosecuters.
3. Lack of funds for a defendant to pay for a lawyer increases probability of false conviction.
4. Corruption in the Judicial System increases probability of false conviction.
5. The death penalty lowers a society to the same moral level as murderers.
6. You deprive the individual of the chance to rehabilitate and become a good member of society. He might even save lives in the future.

I am in favor of the spirit of the death penalty. I think the permanent removal of a dangerous individual from the general population is a good thing. The death penalty is the only surefire way to keep a dangerous murderer from entering the population. Lifelong incarceration, solitary confinement, super high security or any other measures will not absolutely prevent a murderer from getting out and killing again.

However, I am against the execution so to speak of the death penalty. Troy Davis was executed because he’s a black man who was accused of killing a cop and that’s it. He is definitely not the same caliber as, say, Jeffrey Dahmer or Timothy McVeigh.

I do not think the death penalty is necessarily barbaric. I do not think it is state-sanctioned murder. I do not think it is revenge in fact, I cringe a little when someone says “think of the families” in regards to punishment of criminals. I think it is a way to ensure that people who wouldn’t think twice about killing others is not able to kill again.

@WillWorkForChocolate: I got your back.

I’m in favor of it for the most heinous crimes, serial killers, mass murderers, but only if and when there is NO shadow of a doubt about guilt.
Obviously the Davis case was not one where I would support the death penalty.

GA for everyone who answers.

RIP Mark MacPhail.

[mod says] This is our Question of the Day!

I am not opposed to the death penalty when it’s used in a way that I view is proper. I know this gets me kicked out of the Hippie club, but this is the way I see it.

Of course, that shouldn’t be the first resort. The justice system should first strive to keep innocent people safe: you and me safe from Bad People, as well as innocent people who have been charged with crime safe from Bad Justice. If we’re not getting this right, we need to rethink our priorities. And once we’re sure we have the right person in custody and that s/he is a Bad Person, the concentration ought to be on rehabilitation. I think more people are capable of this than are currently given the chance to do so, because of the concentration on punishment. But since there are people out there that are unlikely to be rehabilitated, we cannot let them walk amongst us. And then it’s a choice between permanent incarceration, and something more drastic.

There’s a loud voice coming from a bunch of authoritarian types lately that cheer for death and punishment. This is embarrassing to me as a human being. Vengeance may give some sort of grim satisfaction that a debt has been paid, or that some crimes will never have the chance to be committed again by that Bad Person. If a rabid dog, for example, is attacking your child, there is no time to try to calm the dog down, there’s no way to reason with it, you shoot the thing. But you don’t celebrate its death – you don’t dance around it and cheer and have a freaking party to show off its bloody corpse. No, you just do the job and see to your child, and carry on. If we are to have capital punishment, we don’t need to celebrate that either. It’s fucking grim. It’s the last choice. It means we’ve exhausted every other available opportunity to do something better in the world. It means, in essence, that we’ve failed and that this is the only way to keep the rest of us safe. How is that worthy of any celebration?

And who should die? I see that being asked a lot by the anti-death penalty crowd. If we put a murderer to death, why not a rapist? And if we kill a rapist, why not a Bernie Madoff? And if Bernie Madoff, why not just any white collar criminal? Where do we draw the line? I think this is a false slippery slope. As much as some people would like to shiv Madoff, he doesn’t deserve death. He’s just scum. Prison? Absolutely. Ruin and repayment? Absolutely. But death needs to be reserved for those who have absolutely forsaken their right to walk as a human being, even in prison.

If someone killed, doesn’t he deserve death, then? I’m not so sure. Madoff, for example, stole the retirement funds of a multitude of people who will, indirectly maybe, die because of it. Even someone who outright murdered another human being, in cold blood, for money, can be rehabilitated. I know one. They certainly forfeit a lot to the system, as they must. But it doesn’t mean they’re worth more dead than alive, not if there’s some way they can repay society for their vile crime.

Is death used far too often? Absolutely. Executions should not, in my opinion, ever be routine. They should be exceedingly rare, widely publicised, and when it happens, we all ought to know why. At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, they need to be reserved for society’s Hitlers. For the lowest of the freaking low. For crimes against all of humanity. For those on whom we’ve tried every other way we can think of, to make them whole again.

I’m not against the death penalty. But I’m against the way we use it. And when my fellows cheer the death of even a hardened criminal, it makes me wonder what we’re becoming, and what that shows about our values as a culture.

I wonder how many murders are prosecuted in the US annually versus how many executions?

I’m against it. I just feel it makes us little better than those we are putting to death. Beyond that, it’s not a useful deterrent, and is no more effective than life in prison without parole at keeping society safe. And contrary to popular opinion, it actually costs more to put a person to death than it does to keep them in prison for life.

I am against it. Killing other human beings is wrong… period.

And now after typing that I am thinking… what about if someone was about to kill my child? And I know I would probably kill them if I could to stop them harming my child/partner ... so this is an exception where killing another human might be justified. Capital punishment is not an exception for me though.

It seems that the people here who support it are rather confident that the legal system works 100% of the time or are comfortable with x percent of the people put to death being completely innocent.

When I think of the legal system, and I consider people who have been convicted of a crime, I look at them as merely people who have been convicted of a crime. I don’t know whether or not they really did. In some cases it’s easy to say that they probably did it, or that I’m fairly certain that the evidence points to the fact that they did it. However, we know that it can look this way despite the fact that the person did not actually commit the crime. Add to this corruption, human fallibility, racism, issues having to do with socioeconomic class and access to capable legal representation, and you have a situation in which we know we are going to be putting innocent people to death. This is unacceptable.

i am TOTALLY against it EXCEPT for this one really annoying jerk in my office who continually steals my lunch – I would like him to die, asap.

@tom_g : Go back and reread the posts of the people who stated that they are not against. Going through this thread, I counted eight that are not totally opposed. Most of them stated they had qualms, and would only support it if there was 100% proof. Saying “It seems that the people here who support it are rather confident that the legal system works 100% of the time or are comfortable with x percent of the people put to death being completely innocent.” is a bit egregious in that it diminishes what the concerned posters who don’t agree with you have to say.

@JilltheTooth – Huh? What? What’s going on?

First of all, I am just making what I feel to be an observation or a summary based on my reading of all of the posts above – including my posts and the lack of responses to direct questions like, ” Are you at all concerned that the state could be killing an innocent person?”.

I’m unable to see anyone who supports the death penalty specifically addressing this particular point. Please point it out if you feel that I have missed it. Note: I am one who stated that I would support it if there was 100% proof. What I am summarizing here with my rather bland observation is the fact that the difference between those who are willing to support the death penalty vs. those who are not appears to be tethered to this concept of how good our justice system works.

@JilltheTooth – I get the feeling that I might have caused some kind of rift or something with a recent heated thread. Reread my last post again and see if what I said was anything near controversial or adversarial. If you need help, let me walk through it with you…

“It seems that the people here who support it are rather confident that the legal system works 100% of the time or are comfortable with x percent of the people put to death being completely innocent.”

What about this statement “diminishes what the concerned posters” who don’t agree have to say? It is an attempt to clarify what it seems (“appears” to me) that they are saying. Some have clearly not responded directly to me question about this, so I can only assume what they believe.

Anyway, if it’s “egregious”, please support this claim with evidence.

Here’s another observation. I feel like I could have said “It appears that the sky is blue” and be accused of some kind of “egregious” adversarial attack.

@tom_g – Are you saying that “we cannot know 100% that anybody is guilty at all,” or are you saying “in some cases, we cannot be 100% sure of a person’s guilt?”

If we’re not 100% sure someone is guilty, we shouldn’t go so far as death (which I did address). But in some cases, I believe we are 100% sure.

@laureth: I believe what he’s saying is that those of us who support the death penalty in any capacity are 100% sure that the legal system is flawless and that we are sure that people being put to death are guilty.

I’m just going to put my opinion out there.

I would support the death penalty if there was a way to be very sure that a certain person did the crime. The Norway killer, for example. We are very certian that he is guilty. I would support the death penalty in that case. I would also say the genetic evidence or something similar should be required for a death penalty conviction.

Otherwise, I would support the the type of prison system where we try to take the inmate and help him get ready to go back to society. Most of our prisons can make a person more likely to commit a crime again. The goal of a prison system is not necessarily to punish the criminal, but to make sure that the person does not commit a crime again.

The death penalty should exist as an ultimate discouragement to commiting crimes such as murder. Even if we could guarantee that the murderer will never commit a crime again, it is too late. Our goal with terrible crimes like these is to make sure that the crime does not happen in the first place. If this is our goal, then we need harsh punishment to show people what would happen if they murdered someone.

@laureth – This is exactly what I was attempting to get at. It’s called focusing the argument/discussion, and you hit the nail on the head.

We all have qualms, etc, but it’s interesting to identify the specific variable(s) that cause us to lean one way or another.

You believe that in some cases “I belive we 100% sure”. I disagree. This is huge progress in this discussion, and it explains why there are legitimate disagreements about the death penalty in this country. My belief that we can never know for sure (plus the other factors which I outline in my post 2 posts ago) is specifically why I don’t support it.

So, to summarize – you and I agree that we should consider the death penalty for cases in which we know with 100% certainty that the person is guilty. We disagree on whether or not this is possible

@tom_g – So what I’m hearing you say, is that we can’t say, with 100% certainty, that anyone is guilty of anything? Is this correct?

@laureth – Yes. And since our best system for dealing with crime is the justice system, I am not in favor of the death penalty because there is no chance for this to be corrected. Sometimes people rot in jail for 28 years before new evidence exonerates them. I want there to be that chance.

@tom_g – I agree, if there is doubt, there should be that chance. I would call those, “Cases where we’re not 100% sure.” But I also agree with @PhiNotPi, that there are some cases where we can be pretty darn sure, such as the Norway killer, Ted Bundy, or folks like Stalin and Hitler who have wide recognition.

@laureth, also, Donald Beardslee, Anthony Joe LaRette, Aileen Carol Wuornos, Sean Patrick Flanagan, Gerald Stano, Michael Ross, Melvin Wayne White, Ted Bundy, Humberto Leal, to name a few confessed murderers I found without any problems who have been executed.

@laureth – I get that. It’s a different topic I suppose, but I am not really that 100% certain about anything. It’s all degrees of certainty. The justice system just happens to be one in which I have such little confidence in, I can never have a high level of certainty about – especially not my required 100% for the death penalty.

I’m against the death penalty. Even if it keeps just one innocent person from being put to death, it would be worth it.

@KatawaGrey: ” I believe what he’s saying is that those of us who support the death penalty in any capacity are 100% sure that the legal system is flawless and that we are sure that people being put to death are guilty”

Close. (First of all, I didn’t read your response as being a supporter of the death penalty. I read your response as saying you support the concept but don’t support it in practice.)
Anyway, I was saying that it seems the supporters (who I didn’t include you in) were either sure that the legal system is flawless or they are ok with some percentage of innocent people being put to death. I am pretty sure this is not a false dichotomy, and is hopefully a fair representation of what @Cruiser and @WillWorkForChocolate believes (they haven’t specifically addressed this question so I am not entirely clear ).

I am against it, in general, and certainly against it in its current application.
I think it’s nonsense, when it costs more to put a felon to death, than house him for life (I have always heard that, but I don’t know if it is true).
I also believe that, by killing them, you have taken away any chance they have for spiritual cleansing. Plus, if he is innocent, you take away any chance for him to be vindicated.
In application, it doesn’t work either. If it is going to be a deterrent, then we need to have executions much more frequently. Have a TV reality show on once a week, and start the show with him walking to the chamber, then a re-enactment of his crime, then show his death live on TV. Let people see that every week, and they will understand consequences, and maybe it will deter them. This once every year stuff is horseshit.

The Davis case had no physical evidence. It was based on witness accounts, 7 of 9 that changed they’re story. 1 of the 2 that didn’t was the guy that may have done the alleged shooting. You want to kill someone on that?

@Adirondackwannabe, read this from the attorney who prosecuted the case.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/should-davis-be-executed-1181531.html

I am not sure that the legal system is, as a whole, flawless.
But, I am sure that many cases are what they seem.

I am not OK with innocent people being put to death (geez).
But, I am pretty sure we can be certain of guilt in many circumstances.

Therefore, I still disagree with @tom_g‘s assertion that I am “either sure that the legal system is flawless or [I am] ok with some percentage of innocent people being put to death” because I think the death penalty is appropriate in certain rare instances.

I am against death penalty. Every person should have a second/third/etc chance. They can turn their life around then help others.

For the folks that are saying we owe everybody as many chances as possible to turn around, not condemn them for something they did not do, etc. – would you say that the current justice system does this sufficiently, in your opinion, when the sentence is not death but something less severe, such as life in prison with no hope for parole?

@laureth – So, you are claiming that there are cases in which we can be 100% certain? And if the death penalty were only applied to those cases, you’d be ok with it?

So my assertion (actually a plea for someone to answer the damn question) requires a slight modification in your case. You acknowledge the imperfection of the justice system, but still feel that it is capable of producing cases in which 100% certainty is possible. In those cases only you would support the death penalty.

Again, I don’t think we’re in much disagreement here except for the obvious difference in whether or not we think that case or cases in which 100% certainty is a possibility.

Again, not trying to put words in peoples’ mouths. Just trying to understand specifically where we disagree or agree.

@tom_g – Let me put it this way. Am I a perfect driver? No, I am not a perfect driver. I’ve had a couple speeding tickets, and I’ve even had a couple fender benders, one of which was my fault. So I can say that my driving is not 100% perfect, looked at as a 22 year driving career, from the time I got my license until now.

However, am I a good driver? I’d say yes. Almost every day of my driving life, I have successfully and perfectly executed many driving manoeuvres, including routine commutes to work, and occasional multi-state road trips. I did these repeatedly with no tickets, no accidents, and not so much as a flat tire.

I think the justice system is much like my driving record. Neither of us is 100% perfect. But for individual episodes of driving, or justice, we can be perfect. Does this make more sense?

@tom_g, do you think the handful of cases I cited above where the murderers confessed are 100 percent certain?

@bkcunningham – I am not sure. I haven’t looked into them. The justice system is the best we have, and yet I still don’t feel that it is capable of providing 100% certainty. Even if we could spend hours/days/years combing through evidence and I was personally convinced that we’re looking at 99.999999% certainty here, I would not be willing to give the state the right to kill. I would need 100%.

100% against—surprise, surprise. No one has the tight to decide life and death.

@laureth – This makes perfect sense, and I feel that your arguments are reasonable. I have outlined some of the reasons that I feel the justice system sucks for determining truth, however. I have very little trust that it convicts the right people any decent percentage of the time.

@bkcunningham Yeah, and I’ve never come across a prosecutor with an agenda.

@tom_g – If you feel that the justice system doesn’t convict the right people any decent percentage of the time, would you say there’s a better than average (50–50) chance that any given inmate is actually innocent? Saying this another way, are you confident that a conviction might actually be a sign of innocence, if they get it right less than half the time?

Well, Ted Bundy, for instance. His case is most likely one you’ve heard of or read about.Does his confessions make it 100 percent sure in your mind that he committed murder?

@laureth – I am not sure what percentage of the time they are right. I would suspect it is probably > 50%. The actual percentage in this case is not so important to me as long as we are not omniscient and therefore capable of 100% certainty.

Of course he has an agenda. The same way the defense has an agenda. He was just stating facts @Adirondackwannabe that I don’t think have really been conveyed in the recent media coverage of the case. I just thought it was interesting to consider what he said since he was privy to more facts of the case than you or me.

I’m against it, mostly because it doesn’t solve any problems. I realize that the death penalty’s purpose isn’t to solve a problem at the root, but that’s just it. People demand blood, and they get it. Seems a way to appease a mob.
I mean, there’s other ways to keep a dangerous fucker off the streets. Incarcerate em. In the meanwhile, he could be followed by shrinks and shit, and information may be derived from what he is. This may help us somewhat, in dealing with future events, and perhaps preventing them, at least on some type of scale. I really don’t like the finality of the death penalty (lol) and the notion behind it that seems to suggest we have nothing else to learn. Seems so backwater and primitive to me. I highly doubt we really know everything about the mind of a dangerous individual.
I realize it isn’t the justice system’s job to better an environment other then to protect it. However, I highly question the justice system’s claims in regards to this, therefore the death penalty seems invalid to me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we have a justice system. I’m just really disturbed on how it revolves around money so much…(then again I’ve heard that killing a person costs a whole damn lot)
And even if justice was perfect, I still would be against it. Personally I think we should work towards a way to finding a key to safer cities, instead of killing people and dishing out fines. I mean, has the death penalty stopped people from being criminals? What’s its purpose? It’s easy to lock up some person forever…if you really wanna punish someone, some things are worse than death. Not that I’d be up for that, either. Our priority should be the safety of people, and not how much we can fuck someone up.

It also seems very unbalanced to me. The variances in crime and who gets offed or not doesn’t only depend on where he penalty is allowed and where it is not. I really don’t like all this god playing.

It’s odd to me that squeamish citizens will not think of someone as guilty enough to be put to death but will see fit to put a defendant in a cage full of sodomites until they die. I mean which is it? They are guilty or not guilty. It’s like having your cake and eating it too. They don’t think they really did it, but will condemn them to a life of ass rape , just to be on the safe side?,Everyone feels like they did their job….NEXT!

Why should the criminal get a nice, humane way to die with injection when he did not show any mercy towards his victims?

Different countries have their ways of disposing of the guilty parties. Like stoning to death…nice. I think the fact they are losing their lives it as bad as it gets so I can support doing it as sanitary and quickly as possible and not add memories of another bloody death to haunt our thoughts forever.

Against, for all the reasons already posted, primarily the hypocrisy of killing a killer. :-/

I do however joke about having an 18 hand draft horse and a multitude of extraodinary hanging trees on my property, along with plenty of wilderness burial sites where one could go undetected forever, unless the coyotes dig you up. lol

The guilt or innocence of the convicted is not my primary concern. Even if I were 100% certain the person was guilty of a heinous crime, putting him to death has no benefit besides satisfying the collective blood lust. I think the death penalty is the wrong way to go, no matter what the circumstances.

@augustlan – I believe I would support the death penalty in some form (and for certain crimes) if we were omniscient. Blood lust, however, would not be my motivation. I look at it like this: Some humans are complete garbage and should be thrown out like any other trash. There’s nothing particularly satisfying about putting my garbage out to the curb every Friday. It just happens because it’s trash and there is no use keeping it around. If we had the ability to really know (of course this will never happen), then I would have little trouble ending humans who have committed crimes that we have no use for (murderers, torturers, etc).
Note: I know this is an extremely unpopular view among my fellow anti-death penalty friends.

@tom_g why don’t you think we can ever know 100% for sure that someone is guilty?
If people like the Norwegian mass murderer are caught on film and with multiple witnesses and they admit that they did it and prove themselves, with their own testimony that they did it, you think that that isn’t knowing they are guilty 100%?

I understand people who are against the death penalty. I respect that point of view very much.

I don’t understand your point that we can’t be 100% sure at any time. I think that we can, it may not be very often, but I think that there are times when we can be sure.

@tom_g I don’t get why you are dwelling on the 100% thing either. Unibomber, I think we were 100%. Son of Sam. There are several others.

@JLeslie and @wilma – I am not willing to hand to the state the ability to kill me and my kids just because we can discuss a handful of people that can arguably be considered 100% or close to 100% guilty. It wouldn’t even make any sense to apply it to 3 or 4 people every 20 years. Why bother?

When I describe my support for “taking out the trash” – I mean it. If we could really know (and we can’t, hence by “dwelling” on the 100% thing), I would be willing to end tons of people. I don’t think humans have any kind of inherent value. There are things that a human can do that makes them something harmful to a modern, healthy society.

@tom_g The 100% people are saying they would be willing to use Capital Punishment in those cases. They are not saying since we can be sure about a handful of people, we can or should also use the death penalty on other people we are not sure about.

You simply are against the death penalty. Nothing wrong with that.

I actually felt bad about the hanging of Sadam Hussein, even though I think he was a murdering dictator. Because I think in his position as leader of his country he probably acted as he saw fit as a leader. In the information about him once he was caught by us, he seemed pensive and wanting to protect his people. He was also a secular leader, women were able to be educated and wore western clothes in his country. And, I think easily other leaders, if brought up for war crimes, would be found guilty, even maybe our own President Bush.

Still, I am ok with death penalty in certain cases. Part of it is money, I too am curious to know if it is really more expensive for the state to kill someone than house them 30 years. That seems hard to believe. They would have to be vicious killers with no mercy, enjoying watching their victims suffer, for me to want to put the person to death.

What about the fact that the death penalty doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent? Putting someone to death after a crime seems like just a way of getting revenge.

@GracieT I don’t look at it as revenge, I look at it as ridding the earth of that person so we don’t have to deal with him anymore.

I have heard it is not much of a deterrent, but it seems to me countries that have extremely harsh punitive systems do have less crime. I’m thinking places in Asia, but then also there seems to be less crime in countries that treat criminals with a lot of dignity. I’m not sure statisically what really works. That might be my next question. I have a feeling punishment doesn’t matter much, less crime has more to domwith circumstances before the crimes are ever committed. In the US, I don’t think the death penalty is used as a deterrent, only as punishment.

@GracieT I am no expert in this issue at all but I did find this page that using actual raw data on the numbers of executions versus numbers of homicides there appears to be a direct correlation in graphs presented here

@Cruiser, interesting data. I would be interested in knowing the circumstances around the data such as who did the study, why they studied this question as opposed to another question…

@Cruiser – Interesting data. However, I can show you data between death penalty states and non-death penalty states that wouldn’t be so beneficial to supporters of the death penalty. What’s interesting to me is that I didn’t think the jury was still out on this. Isn’t there a consensus among criminologists that the death penalty is not a deterrent? It’s interesting to hear this deterrent argument being discussed here.

@GracieT Would you be surprised if I told you www.prodeathpenalty.com ??

@tom_g What I found most interesting was in the 10 years ago 80% of the US population supported the death penalty and even now 67% still supports it. As far as a relationship between states, IMO I think the media coverage of an execution no matter which state it occurs in has a residual effect over all the states here and possibly the world over especially in providing a deterrent to hardened criminals who would think twice about pointing a gun at an LEO knowing it is a guaranteed trip to death row if they pull that trigger.

@Cruiser, yes, I am suprised! But thank you for the link. I’m volunteering at the RedCross right now, but I will look later!

I’ve never actually thought of the death penalty or at least, the original purpose behind the death penalty as a deterrent or a satisfaction of blood lust. Look at Ted Bundy who escaped not once, but twice and killed over 30 people that we know of. Some of those murders occurred during his escape attempts. If he had been put to death before he could escape, those people would still be alive. For me, as I’ve said, it’s not about preventing people from killing nor is it about enacting revenge. It’s about ensuring the permanent removal of a dangerous human being from the general population. If a serial killer is alive, there is absolutely no guarantee that s/he will not kill again, even if s/he has a life sentence in a maximum security prison. This whole debate seems to be about the value of human life, but what about the value of the victims’—or potential victims’- lives?

@KatawaGrey I agree with you about removing them permanently. The prison guards don’t need to risk their lives around some of the scum that’s out there. But if you’ve served jury duty you know how flawed ths system is. It’s not good.

@Adirondackwannabe: Oh, I’m not trying to debate the system. Some of it is incredibly flawed. Unfortunately, some of the flaws come from protecting our basic rights which gives me a terrible headache like being unable to use evidence that was obtained illegally, even if it is the evidence that will determine the outcome of the whole case but I believe the original idea behind the death penalty was just to protect the general population.

I’m just super sick of the whole “Oh, it’s so barbaric!” argument. No, it’s not barbaric. It’s human. What’s barbaric is someone who kills a bunch of people, goes to jail, then escapes and kills someone else.

@KatawaGrey I understand. I think criminals forfeit their rights when they committ the crime.

I might make an exception this afternoon after getting the WORST haircut ever! Grrrr!
Grrrr! Trifectafuk….&%$#(@!!! lol

I read an article in a newspaper about a month and a half ago about how some company that made the lethal injection drug was running out of “ingredients” or whatever. So they raised the price to the point where some prison in Texas couldn’t afford the drug, lol. I’ll try to find an online article about it.

Oh, I think this is one.

@Blackberry I heard yesterday, on the BBC, that the English government had forbidden an English company, who was manufacturing and exporting the stuff to the USA, to do so.
Of course there can be more of those suppliers, but the guy who passed the law was pretty proud of it, so I got the idea that that company was the only one why otherwise be proud of it, if there are more companies who make and export it, they (the states that have the death penalty) wouldn’t mind if one supplier in the UK withold it.
I will search for it.
Here it is.
Probably there are more companies who can make the stuff though.

For anyone who is 100 percent opposed to the executing people for certain crimes they have been prosecuted for and found guilty of, what do you propose we do to this person? He is set to die in Texas. He is currently sitting on deathrow in Huntsville, Texas. I just realized he died on September 21. I didn’t even see anything on the “news” about it either.

On June 7, 1998, James Byrd, age 49, accepted a ride from Shawn Berry (age 24), Lawrence Brewer (age 31), and John King (age 23). Berry, who was driving, was acquainted with Byrd from around town. Instead of taking Byrd home, the three men took Byrd to a remote county road out of town, beat him with anything they could find, urinated on his unconscious body, chained him by his ankles to their pickup truck dragging him for three miles. Brewer later claimed that Byrd’s throat had been slashed by Berry before he was dragged. However, forensic evidence suggests that Byrd had been attempting to keep his head up while being dragged, and an autopsy suggested that Byrd was alive during much of the dragging. Byrd died after his right arm and head were severed after his body hit a culvert. His body had caught the culvert on the side of the road, resulting in Byrd’s decapitation.[5]

Berry, Brewer, and King dumped their victim’s mutilated remains in front of an African-American cemetery on Huff Creek Road; the three men then went to a barbecue. Along the area where Byrd was dragged, authorities found a wrench with “Berry” written on it. They also found a lighter that was inscribed with “Possum”, which was King’s prison nickname.[6] The following morning, Byrd’s limbs were found scattered across a seldom-used road. The police found 75 places that were littered with Byrd’s remains. State law enforcement officials, along with Jasper’s District Attorney, determined that since Brewer and King were well-known white supremacists, the murder was a hate crime. They decided to call upon the Federal Bureau of Investigation less than 24 hours after the discovery of Byrd’s remains.[citation needed]

King had several racist tattoos: a black man hanging from a tree, Nazi symbols, the words “Aryan Pride,” and the patch for a gang of white supremacist inmates known as the Confederate Knights of America.[7] In a jailhouse letter to Brewer that was intercepted by jail officials, King expressed pride in the crime and said he realized in committing the murder he might have to die. “Regardless of the outcome of this, we have made history. Death before dishonor. Sieg Heil!” King wrote.[5] An officer investigating the case also testified that witnesses said King had referenced The Turner Diaries after beating Byrd.[8]

Berry, Brewer, and King were tried and convicted for Byrd’s murder. Brewer and King received the death penalty, while Berry was sentenced to life in prison. Brewer was executed by lethal injection on September 21, 2011.

Anyway, here’s one story about what he did to get executed. What would you suggest we do to this particular man for his crimes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd,_Jr.

@bkcunningham I am aware of this, and my emotions say kill him, but my rational side says let him “rot” in jail, which is still pretty irrational, because I want him to suffer.

In certain cases, I’m totally for it.

@bkcunningham Answering for myself only, I don’t care what he did, it’s not up to us to kill another human being. Doing so, in my eyes, makes us little better than he is.

I understand, @augustlan. What would you do with this man?

Give him life imprisonment and keep him there @bkcunningham. I am opposed to the death penalty but not life imprisonment. A sentence of life, should be for life though.

I agree with @Bellatrix. Life sentence, maximum security, no parole.

@Bellatrix and @augustlan, I’m just curious, not arguing. You would give him a life sentence as punishment for his crimes. My question is what would his life in prison be like?

Does his life in prison mean the standard isolation; 23 hours lockdown and one hour recreation time or in the general population? Is he allowed visitors? Is he allowed to talk to his attorney and still work on appeals? Those are the specifics I meant. Is he allowed to have the standard amenities in his cell?

EDIT: Are you just locking him away or trying some kind of rehab?

His time in a maximum security prison would be spent in the same way as anyone else who is sent to a maximum security prison. There was a thread here about being in jail Read @Buster’s post. I haven’t spent time in jail. This man obviously has.

You would need to speak to someone who works in a prison or who has knowledge of the prison system to see what the conditions are like for a maximum security prisoner. I can’t imagine this guy would have a good time though. This Wikipedia article gives some information about different conditions in US prisons.

Hope this helps.

For the purposes of this question, I’m assuming this is an irredeemable human being. For that kind of person, rehab is not really a workable solution, so I’m locking him away forever. Not even so much as punishment for his crimes, but to keep people safe from him. I wouldn’t impose any kind of torture on him, and I really don’t care if he has a TV or not.

Thank you for answering with your views. I know about conditions in the US prison systems, I wasn’t trying to get information about that. I wanted your opinions to try to understand your views and get a little deeper into your thinking and reasoning for opposing the death penalty.

I have friends who work as correctional officers in a variety of prison. As a matter-of-fact, we are picking up my brother-in-law and his wife from the airport today for a little visit with us. He, his son and son-in-law are all correctional officers in prisons in Northern New York. He’s told a few stories about his job that show another point of view.

I’ve been in a supermax prison and met a few inmates. I’ve been in a maximum security prison and met many inmates. I’ve met and talked to a couple who are serving life without the possibility of parole. Again thank you.

As a sidebar, from several interviews and articles I’ve read, James Byrd’s immediate family say, as Christians, they forgive his killers and killing them doesn’t bring their father (brother et al) back. They have found peace in their hearts through their belief in God. They held a vigil at a memorial for Byrd when the execution was taking place. The event was called, “Love, Justice, Mercy, Compassion, and Peace.”

Not all victims would feel this way. But I thought it was interesting and should be added to the discussion.

Mixed feelings about it – glad I dont have to decide one’s fate. Whenever there is a story about rape/homicide, especially of children – I tend to lean towards let’s get rid of this animal and save us 50 years of prison costs. Then you hear about the innocent people put away in prison, some for dozens of years… and you’re thankful that they weren’t given the needle. It’s the irreversibility of it that makes it a not so good idea.

I think it should be voluntary -this gives the choice to the criminal-they can either serve-out their sentance or choose a voluntary end to their life.This seems the most humane solution to me.I also believe that if someone has a mental illness and they know they are unable to belong in society, they should have the compassionate choice to get help with ending their life:assisted suicide.I genuinely believe some people with mental illness who do things out of compulsion are begging for help with ending their lives.