Should there be a death penalty in the US?

Should there be a death penalty in the US?

(Edited to add #3)

1) A government body should never take a life of a citizen
2) The system is too flawed to be fair- and it never will be.

I especially agree with (1). I would add that a death penalty advocate needs to make the case to me that the state has the right, or the power, to take someone's life. Is it in the Constitution?

Fitting under the banner that the states shall not have the power to enforce " cruel and unusual punishment". ('Course, slavery certainly fit into this category...)
While some people who "Deserve" the death penalty may deserve cruelty, it is not up to the government to hand them that. The only thing that must be served is justice- not revenge.

I'm no Constitutional scholar myself :)
But, from what I know, it would SEEM that the death penalty can certainly be argued to be cruel/unusual punishment. Especially the electric chair...that's torture. I don't care how horrible a person is to deserve the death penalty, I don't want to see the government acting as the killer did and engage in the act of taking a life...

is neither cruel nor unusual.

Because I find it hard to believe that subjecting someone to die by hanging or electrocution isn't an act of cruelty.

Specifically, the fifth amendment, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Since a person cannot be put in jeopardy of his life twice for the same crime, we can obviously conclude that he can be put in such jeopardy once.

Hope that settles the Consititutional questions for you.

Drew Garrett

then she must be made of wood because wood floats like a duck. We know that witches are made of wood because we burn witches. Therefore if she weighs the same as a duck, she must be a witch!

Your argument is a bit convoluted because it relies on inference. It is not deductive logic.

So cutting off someone's hand can really be argued to be perfectly constitutional?

...nor be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of Law... Fifth Amendment.

Right on the money.

Unfortunately, have not looked at it too closely since.

However, I remember being shocked at how if the victim of the capital crime was white, the killer was much more likely to receive the death penalty than if the victim was white (I think I remember it was 11 times more likely, but when all other possible factors were taken into consideration, it was still like 5 times more likely) - I don't know if it has changed, but if Laci Peterson has been black, would we have heard nearly as much about her? I don't think so. I had expected some racism when I looked at the death penalty, but 11 times more likely?

It is way too unfair. There have already been over 100 people taken off of death row since DNA has come into the picture. Just think how many more have died that were innocent, but they did not have the resources to prove it. Any time there is a even a slight chance, there should definetly not be a death sentence. We as a society become no better then the one judged when the death penalty is given.

How could one argues that Scott Peterson's not deserved to die?

I voted YES.

that another deserves to die?


I find it esp. amazing that Christians would give themselves that authority. Maybe I expect too much out of them.



As someone else noted - people who do not believe in the death penalty are excluded from juries - so the whole process goes against representing the will of the people.

If murder deserves murder, who murders the murderers?

the murderers.

put near that answer is too heavy for me.

How do you like the company you keep?

* Afghanistan
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Belarus
* Belize
* Botswana
* Burundi
* Cameroon
* Chad
* China (People's Republic)
* Comoros
* Congo (Democratic Republic)
* Cuba
* Dominica
* Egypt
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Ethiopia
* Gabon
* Ghana
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guyana
* India
* Indonesia
* Iran
* Iraq
* Jamaica
* Japan
* Jordan
* Kazakhstan
* Korea, North
* Korea, South
* Kuwait
* Kyrgyzstan
* Laos



* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Liberia
* Libya
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Mongolia
* Morocco
* Myanmar
* Nigeria
* Oman
* Pakistan
* Palestinian Authority
* Philippines
* Qatar
* Rwanda
* St. Kitts and Nevis
* St. Lucia
* St. Vincent and the Grenadines
* Saudi Arabia
* Sierra Leone
* Singapore
* Somalia
* Sudan
* Swaziland
* Syria
* Taiwan
* Tajikistan
* Tanzania
* Thailand
* Trinidad and Tobago
* Uganda
* United Arab Emirates
* United States of America
* Uzbekistan
* Vietnam
* Yemen
* Zambia
* Zimbabwe

of executions occured in 4 countries in 2003:

China
USA
Iran
Vietnam

I don't think it is a deterrent to murder. I think there is too many opportunities in the justice system for errors to occur.

Personally I would fear life in prison more than death. Watching Oz on HBO scared the bejeezus out of me.

Other than that no. Terrorism should be punishable by a violent death.

baby rapers?

Okay, do you understand that "terrorism" is a made-up word with no specific meaning that could be applied to angry teenaged anarchists graffiting the corporate headquarters of Nike AND Osama Bin Laden?

Do you understand that the patriot act will make most of us terrorists?

Especially if you're an immigrant. Thank-you John Ashcroft for protecting our land from those pesky non-violent protestors.

the terrorists like to kill themselves too.

How else are we going to stop their ruthless killing?

That's borderline illegal.

After all, Bushco's planning on convicting Saddam of war crimes, and then putting him to death.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. :)

I support the death penalty.

Therefore, no.

You can always release someone from prison if a mistake was made.

Hard to release a dead man.

just joking ? study it,study it more pro & con then decide but make believe you have convicted and are inocent waiting to be put to death.

then it's ok to be for the death penalty, else you can write off the hillbilly vote.

yeah, I'm feeling grouchy. bite me.

We are one of 5 or 6 countries that have it, they include Iran and pre-war Iraq. Instead of the death penalty there should be life sentences with some kind of work attached so it dose not cost the system much, just training and set up. They should have to make a living just as they would out of prison.

... then you can't kill em...

As simple as that for me...

Too many instances(instances period)in which evidence used to convict someone has later proved false. There was a story in the Chicago Tribune this week about a man sentenced to dealth in, where else, Texas for arson and new information has shown that the fire inspectors used bad science now deemed unreliable.

"Life begins at conception and ends at birth."

Let them be born then will kill 'em.

I know what I would want done if someone hurt my family.

Not justice. And the justice system is not here to give people revenge. That is also what makes me sick of the penalty phase... crying grieving mothers who make the jury sympathize and say, let's kill the killer so the mother (father, family) can feel better.

The death penalty is the reason we are still basically a third world country...and yet have high murder rates. Look at European nations, or hell, look at Canada... what is their murder rate compared to ours, and who has the death penalty?

It basically re-iterates what you've said but you have to take into account that it's difficult to criticize people for wanting to seek vengence when seeking vengence is human nature.

Which is the main reason why I am 100% against the death penalty. The fact is that if somebody in your family is raped, murdered, or both, it is human nature to seek vengence. Not only would you want that person to get the death penalty, you'd probably want to kill him yourself.

Here's the problem. Do you really want to live in a society where the family members of victims get to play judge and jury? Of course not, it would be complete anarchy. That's why we have a judicial system, so that people can recieve a fair trial and a fair sentence from an unbiased party, not one that acts on the will of the victim's family members.

The criminal justice system is not only about bringing people to justice, but also making sure that those who are brought to justice recieve a fair trial, a fair punishment, and equal protection under the law.

Comes this report out today:

Report: Death Penalty on the Decline
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/10409098.htm?1c

Sorry, guys it requires a subscription, but here's an excerpt:

"WASHINGTON - The use of the death penalty dropped this year for the fifth year in a row,as questions grow about the guilt of the condemned and more states take a hard look at their use of executions, says a report by a group critical of the punishment.

"The Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center's look at 2004 figures shows a 40 percent drop in executions since 1999, a 50 percent decline in death sentences handed out and a shrinking death row population."

The author goes on to marvel at the decline and speculate about the causes. I want to smack him upside the head and go, "Hey, moron! Did it occur to you that * not being governor of Texas anymore and killing prisoners left and right might have a little something to do with that decline!??!"

It's more of a matter of justice. Certain heinous crimes deserve the death penalty.

...both as Governor of Arkansas and President. Enlighten us, please, do you think he is in the "wrong party"?

and also did not have very helpful things to say about Bush's Iraq adventure.


I do not know what party he belongs in other than the vague grey area between right-wing and true Democrat.

I welcome you

By that I mean the a life sentence will absolutely genuinely mean life until that person dies of old age in prison. Usually, after they have served a bunch of years, some sympathic person, full of human kindess but with little sense, wants to release the criminal. There were people that wanted to release Hess, the last Nazi. Only the USSR held firm and would not let him out. Hess was one of Hitler's inner circle, and because of the Soviets, he stayed in prison until he died.

That is the only thing that I give the Soviets credit for.

My greatgrandfather was murdered in his old age. His wife was also shot, and IDed the killer before she died a few days later. He was sentenced to death, got it commuted to life, and was parolled after 20 years.

I am pro death penalty, and it should be carried out rapidly. Executing somebody after 20 years of legal wrangling dilutes the deterrent effect.

In the 1930s, some guy took a shot at FDR, missed, and killed a govenor that was with him. The guy was immediately caught, tried, and executed in 30 days.

put to death? That is my biggest problem, its revenge, not justice, and sometimes, particularly when the appeals process is circumvented, innocent people are put to death, how is that any different than being a serial killer?

Are you willing for LIFE to actually mean L-I-F-E, stay-in-prison-until-the-end LIFE? If not, then I will continue to insist for the death penalty.

I will agree that it must be restricted to those cases where there is no chance of error. That would mean life for Scott Peterson and many others on death row as there is remote possibility of error. But there are some there that were caught in the act, or filmed doing their crime, or other such evidence that leaves absolutely no doubt. I would restrict the use of it to those cases that are beyond that any possibility of having the wrong person.

First off, advocate for harsher sentences if you like, it will still be done on a case by case basis. Second, because of the drug war, many non-violent offenders are thrown in jail and violent offenders are released to make room, that is the biggest problem. There have been murderers sentenced to 200 years in jail with the possibility for parole in 150, I think that would be sufficient. Then there are those who get sentenced to 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread at the age of 15, that is a travesty.

As far as the "no chance for error" for the death penalty only, that is never going to happen. DA's that worry about elections aren't going to restrict the death penalty to only those cases, that's ridiculious. The way the death penalty is set up now, it is a great tool to pressure people to confess to crimes they haven't committed, and a great tool to make the populace no better than the criminal. Our judicial system is flawed, it will ALWAYS be flawed, and even having the death penalty up as an option will ensure that innocent people get the needle, chair, or gas chamber.

The problem is that even in open and shut cases, there will always be problems, and even in our "exalted" system where people are supposed to be innocent till proven guilty, mistakes happen and innocent people are put to death. That is simply unacceptable to me, for I care about human rights, and realize that our system doesn't sufficiently protect those who end up in it. Am I willing to make Life in prison actually mean it, yes I have no problem with that.

I am willing to let go of the death penalty if life actually genuinely means life.

The only way around it is an executive pardon and trust me, Governors and Presidents don't exactly go up in the approval rating polls when they pardon convicted rapists and murderers.

victim(s) of the guilty.

but it really is as simple as "two wrongs don't make a right."

Death penalty needs to be outlawed in this country, period. Here's some reasons:

1) By putting to death convicted person, you are not just punishing them, but their families as well.

2) Although convicted by a jury, individual may actually be innocent and you run the risk of putting to death an innocent person.

3) The legal system (in terms of sentencing) is not uniform across this country and you have some individuals who are put to death, while others who have committed worse crimes are spared--not a fair system (i.e., snipers in DC)

4) If you give the convicted person a life sentence, they will wind up dying in jail anyways (why would you ask somebody to take the life of another person?)

5) Some convicted criminals may have important information pertaining to possible other crimes--if they die, so goes the information

This study shows that states with death penalty had slower decline in murder rate than states without death penalty. Again, states that DO NOT execute criminals had a more dramatic decline that states that DO.

Read article here

Not for deterrent reasons, of course. It deterrs nothing.

For revenge purposes, it's totally appropriate.

Only for the worst of the worst.

It's institutionalized murder.

Our society is supposed to be always moving toward what we believe to be a greater enlightened state. Our justice system is based on rehabilitation, but we continue to misapply sentences based on the emotional reaction of revenge.

I used to say under no circumstances would I support the death penalty, but I am starting to believe it warranted in extreme cases of treason, or crimes against humanity.

Barry Scheck.

I voted no.

He is an absolute inspiration for those of us who believe that the state should not be party to irrational revenge. He quoted Jesus, showing that jesus himself was against the practice,

A briiliant man. He proclaimed that if we are indeed fighting against
'islamic fundamentalists' who believe in the Hammuarabi code, why should we stoop to their level?

are we no better?

I think that many people who support the death penalty support it because they think that the person will get out of prison. Too many times, "life sentences" are only 20 years, etc. I think we need to give longer, tougher sentences to some people and I truly think the only reason it's not happening now in many cases is money/room at the prisons. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

countries.

For the most heavy cases, an incompressible time can be added to the condemnation for life

I can only assume they've never been to a maximum security prison.

I don't have any moral position against the death penalty as such but there is far too much margin for error particularly if the accused is poor.

It's also completely and totally useless as a deterent.

People also often think because they've heard of a murderer who "got off" after 10 years that that is the norm, every crime unfortunately needs to be taken on a case by case basis, otherwise the person who kills the husband that's beaten them for 20 years gets the same sentance as the man who kills his wife for leaving him (oops where I'm from the woman would still get a longer sentence...way off topic there but a bit of a sore point with me, see "provocation" defence)

Once someon leaves prison their sentence isn't actually over - almost impossible getting a job with a serious criminal record, family and friends, even if they want to know you have moved on, so has life in general.

Seriously 10-20 years in a maximum security prison isn't a "let off"

when he is such an ardent supporter of the death penalty. IMHO the only one who has a right to take a life is God. Yes there are some who take innocent lifes and those lives must be avenged but it should be by life in prison. We have the possibility of someone being put ot death in CT next month and I plan on being there in protest of this abonimation (sp) being done in my name and yours!!

The media and the right-wing made a HUGE deal out of Kerry being pro-choice which is against the Catholic Church, but not a peep out of the media about Bush being for the death penalty which is against the Methodist Church.

and the priest was telling the story of the prodigal son from the bible and how that that story tells that we should forgive others and while one should be punished for his crimes, the death penalty is not the answer. He was very upset with all the cheering he saw on TV concerning the scott peterson story.

for all of the reasons given by other posters and for two additional reasons:

The first creates a further moral and ethical dilemma for Christians. I suppose you all remember Karla Fay Tucker, the woman executed in Texas while Bush was Governor there, that he made fun of? In her time in prison she became a Christian and impressed many people with the sincerity of the change in her soul... evidently it did not impress Bush, who professes to be a Christian.

At any rate, taking the life of a human being by the state deprives them of time to change and become remorseful over acts they committed, often as young, angry people, so that they may die with peace in their hearts. Life sentences do not guarantee that they will change, but it gives them the opportunity.

The second has to do with the well-documented fact that large numbers of people who have murdered others were the product of extreme abuse in their childhood. As a side note, I watched a documentary that said that Hitler had been beaten severely many times in his youth by his father. And I think you could argue he went on to become a mass murderer. Anyway, I often feel that our prisons are full of "victims" who learn to victimize others and, while it may be legitimate to incarcerate them, I don't feel that I want the state on my behalf to take their lives from them.

I would argue for more meaningful lives within prison, not just the ability to become more educated, but to actually do work which is useful. I don't understand how anybody keeps their sanity in prison, anyway, so perhaps life in prison is an even more heinous punishment than the death penalty.

I think the standard used for conviction of a crime, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not sufficient for the death penalty. I think it should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or something along those lines where there is absolutely no other possibility other than guilt. I also think the murder must be truly heanous. Timothy McVeigh and the bigots who murdered the black man in Texas by dragging him behind a truck come to mind. All of those people committed truly heinous crimes and deserved to die.

Its a rather fuzzy term, beyond a reasonable doubt, but then again so is the one you mentioned. If the standards are set too high in capital cases, then no convictions could take place, why not just leave the standards as they are, and actually guarantee that people like McVeigh never see the light of day. It would lead to an unequal justice system to begin with anyways, having two tiers of standards.

I think conviction for life in prison could take place at the lower standard, but that the higher standard would be required for the death penalty.

where would that standard be, to put it bluntly, would you rather have a chance to convict someone like McVeigh and put him in prison for life, or would you rather risk him being freed on the chance that he may be put to death?

The jurors could consider both options at the same time. It does not have to be an either or. If the evidence is enough to convict at the death penalty level, then that is what the jury would find. If the evidence was only enough to convict at the life in in jail, that is what the jury would find.

I am not a lawyer or court expert, these are just some ideas I have thought about while pondering the death penalty.

the problem is that it is all abritrary anyways, it is very unusual to only have the death penalty as an option during the sentencing phase, so juries DO already have a pick. The problem comes when people enter the picture in the first place, we are not perfect, and appealing to emotion, particularly fear and anger, is all to easy, so why even risk having the death penalty as an option to begin with?

to say you are against the death penalty when the murder was not close to you.
If someone took my child and raped,tortured,killed and tossed them out somewhere like a sack of trash I would see everything through different eyes.

But to take your hypothetical, lets say it did happen to you, police tell you they have a suspect, and taking things in your own hands, you met out justice on them your way. They are dead, you feel vindicated, but then the police arrest you for murder, plus you find out, too late, that the suspect was already ruled out in your child's case, a mixup as it were. Should you be put to death by the state for killing an innocent person or not? Revenge is not always sweet, it is bitter and cold, as well as hollow.

shows a fundamental misunderstanding- and acceptance of the media framing of the debate.

Typically American. Assume facts to be true that aren't and reinforce them in a stupid poll....

You're welcome to share what your understanding is and contribute to the debate -- that'd be more interesting and productive than attacking me, wouldn't it? :*

The media does this kind of thing all the time- so parden me for pointing it out.

The death penalty is of course not a deterrant- NO evidence exists to suggest that, and if you do the crosstabs on it, it'll suggest that the contrary may be true. Take a look at murder rates and states that execute the most people.

That poll response is no better than asking "did Sadaam help plan 9-11."

The next response- state sanctioned murder- is emotionaly loaded- and it's inaccurate too. Capital punishment isn't murder- although it is homicide. And "morality" such as it is doesn't have a whole lot to do with the most compelling arguments against it.

So, you've basically famed the debate in a distorted way- and furthered misconceptions- just like the media does!

At least you're explaining your thoughts instead of attacking. I probably should have just written "Yes, No, Undecided," period. I wrote short 'arguments' I've often heard people make on both sides, but there certainly are other arguments, as well (better ones, you're saying). Fair enough. Thanks for your thoughts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the crimes once again and ensure, using modern technology, that the killer is the convicted person. But, there are some crimes so heinous that the death penalty applies. But the costs of this system would hopefully make it reserved for only these few heinous acts.

:thumbsdown:

For getting our children killed for a lie and for invading sovereign nations that are not and not planning to attack the US. It's called war crimes and international crimes.

I am tired of my tax dollars going to keep up people who need the death penalty.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

btw, it costs much more to apply the DP than life incarceration.

state-sanctioned murder is horrific.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The appeals process costs a shitload in administrative and legal fees, plus prisoners are often housed for many years before they are executed. So that argument is null and void.

...partially because I am, and partially because your "either/or" question irked me.

"Yes, there are times when it's appropriate, and it deters crime."

I'm quite certain the latter is false, from the sources I've seen, but I agree with the first half of the statement.

You also neglected to include, for the No side, "There is simply too much chance, in our imperfect justice system, that an innocent man is murdered", and so forth, as well as categorical agreements or disagreements for each side, such as:

"Yes, but only for someone with a history of violence convicted of multiple first-degree murders"

or "No, except for the most heinous crimes, such as large-scale terrorism (i.e. 9/11)."

And situations where i would deem execution o.k., but i have no faith in the system that would administer the punishment to do so in a fair manner.

D.A's and Judges, not to mention police, are often to worried about how they look, and image than whats really right or wrong.

I also have a problem with the concept that under almost any circumstance it is illegal for me to kill, yet fine for the state.

I don't like the idea of government deciding who lives or dies.

I would have said no. today I say, if you you know its the one who killed, then they will kill again. Whose family and extended familes and dreams will be blown away then? Changed my mind on the death penalty and it only takes one murder up close and personal to change your mind. I always wondered where I would stand if someone I love was murder and it was premeditation and now I know. It won't bring the person back but there is closure knowing that person won't harm another.

We shouldn't keep the cycle of death going. I used to be for it when I saw stories of child killings, but as horrific as those killings are, I don't see killing someone else as the answer. There can never be true closure after such things. Also, there can never be a truly fair system.

If jails weren't a satisfactory way of keeping murderers from society, I would re-think the death penalty. But only then.