Death Penalty

Simple as can be. Do you believe the death penalty should be carried out.

No statements such as 'I am usually against the death penalty, but......'.

An answer one way or the other: Should any country or state put convicted prisoners to death?

All I'm looking for is yes or no on idealogical grounds.

I'd kill an asshole myself if he/she murdered a family member or loved one. If given the chance to "pull the lever" I'd gladly do it.

Indiscriminantly executing people for small indiscretions is immoral, though, IMO.

spell edit

All you're describing is a slippery slope- and NOT a principled position.

First i's a family member you wantg vengence (or torture) for- then it's a nieghbors kid. Then it's all kids- next it's FOR kids who commit murder. Then it's for cases of rape, etc.

My belief is firm and does not include a step-by-step process that leads to the indiscriminate execution of just anyone for anything.

Sure, there may be some individuals that society might be better off if they were permanently removed.

But for the most part I don't believe the death penalty is correct in modern cultures. Then I add in the abysmal record of the police and courts of convicting the wrong person. And the practical matter that the efforts to give the condemned every chance to prove their possible innocence and make sure that we have not made a mistake ensures that actually applying the death penalty is an expensive and takes too long to give anyone a sense of satisfaction that justice has been done. Then there is the damage done to those who have to administer the death at the end.

We need to concentrate on making sure our justice system actually does its job convicting the correct people. And then lock the really bad people up where they cannot hurt anyone else even another felon.

The scale of the crime, it is justified. I am prepared to go into rational and logical terms.

If you want a one-liner glib one-dimensional answer, then my answer is "YES".

Good question. The crime deserves the punishment. If the crime is heinous enough and it fits within the law specifying when the death penalty is applicable, use it. However, not if it is going to take 20 years of legal wrangling to carry out the sentence. Set the penalty and give one automatic appeal. If the sentence isn't turned over carry it out in 6 months.

There's a lot of people that wind up with life sentences and even on death row for crimes they didn't commit.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

You're OK with finding out they really didn't do it?

The next serial rapist who is freed, let them be your neighbor or better yet, let them move in with you and pay rent.

Are you willing to go the distance with your beliefs? Do you prefer having a vile person live very nearby, or unable to do the same abhorrent thing to anyone else?

I'll choose the latter, thanks all the same.

Some crimes, after a certain point, can not be paid back to society. There is a line.

and gets arrested and convicted for a crime he/she didn't commit? It happens way too often.
Once you put them to death, well, I'm sure you see where I'm going...

It is barbaric, immoral, and there are no "do-overs".

I agree with you. I get puzzled by the people who qualify their sometime support of the DP. The way I see it is you are for or against.

when another human being should die? Narcissism is ruining American culture.

immoral

as assistant warden in a Maximum Security Prison... he has repeatedly told me that there should be no death penalty... Sometimes for me, I often say I would like to see certain people six feet under cause society would be much better off.... But nope, I really deep down don't believe that we should put someone to death.

This has already been well established and there's no other way to justify it. So if the only reason for doing it is revenge, we're doing it for the wrong reason. It's really that simple.

Even beyond just the fact that I'm pretty sure we have executed innocent people (and will continue to do so), the death penalty is not justifiable if you believe in inalienable human rights.

probably as good a reason as any... Yes we have killed innocent people....

I have never believed in the death penalty because I have harsher measures in mind for the worst of the worst out there. No tv, no magazines, no mail, no phone calls, two showers a week, one hour of sunlight a day. You get the idea.
I have a friend whose daughter was violently and senselessly murdered. The bastard who (allegedly) did it can get death if convicted. My friend has wrestled with that question since then and still does not believe in the death penalty. That's good enough for me.

It could not have been an easy decision for them to come to that conclusion.

The appeals process in a DP case must pass a much higher bar and can easily drag out for decades. The victims have to relive the experience each time the condemned has to go back to court, and they face a much higher risk that the original trial will be eventually thrown out.

Those who favor the DP often look at it from the perspective of the original victims, but they never look at it from the other angle. What if your father, or sister, or son were condemned to die? Would you still be pro-DP? The DP simply creates more victims and doesn't help anyone.

I'm pretty sure I said that I am opposed to the death penalty as is my friend whose daughter was anally raped and then shot in the head. The bastard who (allegedly) did it should get life w/o parole. My punishment is worse than death I believe. As I already said, no contact with the outside world whatsoever. None. Yeah, it's torture, but a freak like that should have zero freedoms. There is no rehab for someone like that.

...between Corporations/Politicians causing the Death of many people and one person causing the death of one person.

Highly Illogical.

I thought that one was well deserved.

although Bundy did not meet the legal definition of insanity

He may have been a psychopath, but he wasn't psychotic.

The only incentive to let him live would have been to pick his brain and learn more about how serial killers think. But, he was coy and didn't want to give anyone a straight answer, so maybe it's just as well he was put to death.

The death penalty is fine by me, for a few rare exceptions like Ted Bundy. Although I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head.

Either there should be a system allowing for the death penalty in certain cases, or there should no no death penalty. You can't pick and choose based on what you feel like.

I feel that every human has a right to life even if they take another life. The point of law is not to seek vengeance it is to control the population. It would be better to rehabilitate a murderer than to kill him and have accomplished nothing but more killing.

Ted Bundy was most definitely insane. You can't even get sociopath and psychopath separated. But either way, Bundy was not capable of conceiving the reality that you and I experience. Therefore, to say that he deserves punishment for his crimes is ludicrous. When one lacks the ability to control their actions, they should be free of punishment.

Randy Kraft
William Bonin
Roy Norris
Raymond Bittaker

I can go on and on if you wish...

Psychopathic personality:
http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/PsychopathicPersonality.htm

A sociopath is similar to a psychopath.

Psychosis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

Bundy clearly had a personality disorder, most likely a psychopath. I think you need to familiarize yourself with his story before assuming that he was insane and not in control of his actions.

If he had received a life sentence, I would be satisfied with that, too. I definitely side against the death penalty, but some cases are less wrong than others.

As for "picking and choosing" based on what I feel like...since no one ever consults me regarding death penalty cases, I will continue to feel whimsical about who gets executed and who doesn't. But If I ever attain the venerable position to decide death penalty policy, then I will absolutely rethink my stance. But trust me, nobody will ever ask me to decide. Until then it's just intellectual exercise.

He was NOT "psychotic" ala Andrea Yates. Yates is mentally ill and killed her children during a psychotic episode. Bundy wasn't mentally ill or insane.

This is Abnormal Psych 101 stuff.

definition of insanity. He was examined and found to be sane.

If you watch documentaries about him, you can see quite clearly that he is sane. He was driven by some compulsion to kill young women who reminded him of an old girlfriend who had rejected him. And he enjoyed killing them. And he knew it was illegal.

Was he "normal"? No, since most of us aren't serial killers. But not being normal is not the same as being insane. He was a sociopath or psychopath. He had no ability to feel what others feel, no empathy, no "caring gene," coupled with the need to be sadistic.

Sometimes people are just bad seeds, or evil. Sometimes they are too dangerous to leave around, on the off chance they ever get out. There is no rehabilitation for people like Bundy. They have gone too far. He had given up his life and made the main focus of his life the killing of innocent people. He lived for it. He planned his life around it. He chose locations to live in, based on availability of victims.

I'm 100% against thu DP, but Bundy was totally and completely sane.

there are very few 'black/white' absolutes in my world- this is one of them.

One of the very few clear cut issues in the world, and I also see most things in a range of greys.

area to certainty.

No.

Regardless of personal feelings about friends lost to homicide, I take a stand against the death penalty.

If you rape children, or, for instance, slaughter a family so you can rape a child, or start a war for profit or for any reason other than to defend your country, or torture and/or murder human beings in succession, and it is absolutely proven that you committed any one of these crimes, you should be put to death. It's harsh, and it may be morally wrong, but that is what I honestly believe.

I see...

including a prison society.That is just my opinion any how.

wouldn't the DP for child rape just encourage rapists to murder their victims, to prevent them from informing?

I dont think those who are anti death penalty are wrongand in fact make great points on their side. It is just an issue that hits close to home

I have for years been against the death penalty because it's not a deterrent - just a means of vengeance.

Yet there have been instances where I've heard of crimes so heinous that I'm ashamed to admit that if the perpetrator were to be in front of me, I would probably murder him/her with my own two hands. Such rage is frightening.

However, when you say (in response to the person who pointed out that child rapes are one of the cases in which it should be allowed) that this person advocates killing someone who has not killed another person, I have to disagree. My daughter was sexually abused for years by a brother in law - a relatively benign looking person who looked for all the world like one of them "Good Christians" we see so often.

He didn't physically kill her, but he did just as bad. He murdered her soul.

She was abused over 25 years ago. She is in her late 30s and STILL suffering from the effects of the abuse.

I realize that this man was, and still is, very sick. Executing him wouldn't change that. Yet there are times when I still want to put my hands around his throat and choke him till he dies.

Lots of people think this is a purely black and white issue, but it's not. Especially when we consider the victims and their families.

Personally, I think the question should be left to the wishes of the victims and/or their families. In many instances, they would probably be more merciful and forgiving than the State. But then again, if they're not, would anyone really begrudge them a chance to avenge their losses?

I dunno...like I said...this isn't as simple as it sounds.

but I at least agree with you.

There are those whom I think cannot be saved and are vile enough to be put to death, but killing is always wrong, no matter who is doing it. I've never met God, so I do not know of anybody who is qualified to judge who should live and who should die.

if called for.

Although my thoughts on how the prison system should work for those convicted of violent crimes do not fit with the norm provided by those generally opposed to the death penalty.

Likewise, how I get to a "no" takes some rather wide deviations from the typical path I see for those opposed. It is, at the end, an ideological opposition.

No.

I do not oppose it on the convicted's behalf, as the acts of some make a strong argument for the penalty.

It is beneath those who have not committed such crimes to have this done in our names. We are the humane and should act accordingly, even to those apparently not deserving such consideration.

... for important issues. If the state routinely murders people, how can we expect individuals to see it as absolutely wrong?
The death penalty breeds a more violent populace.

we have the best justice system that money can buy. If you have the be$t lawyers you can get off. If you are an average person you usually get the book thrown at you regardless of guilt.

defined legal term "murder" in this thread.
Count on it.
Also, count on them to ignore that FACT.

I don't have enough confidence in the government to collect my garbage in a competent manner,

In certain cases it's justified.

i wont shed a tear for those fuckers

Something of an American irony.

I know some people would ask if I would feel differently if someone in my family was murdered.

I can say no, I wouldn't.

My favorite uncle was murdered about 12 years ago.

They caught the two men who did it.

It never entered my mind even once that they should be put to death for it.

So my answer is no.

In fact, if my tax dollars are going to go towards revenge killing, I want it to take place at half-time at the Superbowl. Make a big deal out of it. Celebrations, tailgating, etc. etc. Then at half-time, just tie the prisoner two two separate horses and rip him/her apart on live TV. Or perhaps we can impale them with spears as they run for their lives. Better yet, have close-up live pictures of torture before they are put to death. That way we can get maximum enjoyment out of the event. Yeah, sure, kill 'em.

-P

ignores the basic reality that our system of justice is flawed (like any system devised and presided over by human beings) -- and innocent people have sometimes been, and will continue to sometimes be, convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

Damning eyewitness testimony has turned out to be false. Prosecutors have withheld exonerating evidence in order to get a career-boosting conviction. People have been wrongly punished because of honest mistakes or deliberate wrongdoing, and there's always going to be a certain amount of that because it's part of who we are as a species.

As for the reasoning behind "well yeah, but baby-rapists definitely don't deserve to live," -- it must be based on the notion that the more heinous the crime, the more accurate the trial results. But obviously it's absurd to think the process functions better in cases where the crimes are greater. And all the gruesomely detailed descriptions of horrific crimes (which reliably appear in most death penalty discussions) can't change this. All they can do is whip our brainstems up into a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" lynch mob state of vengefulness.

So no, I don't believe in state-sponsored killing.

I also believe that blacks and latinos would probably be more likely to be sentenced. I also will admit that it is an emotionally charged issue. But on the fundamental point if it was able to be proven that john doe committed one of those crimes I would be fine with the state executing him in a timely fashion. I think also of the other prisoners who are locked up with rapists torturers and murderers who are LOCKED IN WITH THEM. And I really dont like the idea of supporting said people in the prison system.

PS I just want to let you know that bottom line i respectfully disagree with you and the position you take. I think that debate on the internet can just get way out of hand since you are not face to face with a person. I have been misconstrued as being rude before and do not wish to be

were supery-dupery guilty, would receive the death penalty? Would the bar be raised making it more difficult with lengthier, more costly trials, requiring a much higher level of proof to achieve a sufficient degree of certainty? A very few people have been honest enough to admit, right here on these boards, that their desire to kill certain criminals runs so deep, they are okay with occasional executions of the innocent.

As for the objection of paying to support someone who is serving a life sentence, it should be common knowledge by now that the death penalty is much more costly than life imprisonment. The only way to make the death penalty actually cost LESS would be to reduce the number of appeals, speed up the entire process, and thus INCREASE the chances of wrongful executions carried out on innocent persons. A cheaper death penalty is guaranteed to increase the ranks of innocent victims.

"Financial Facts About the Death Penalty" excerpt from a study conducted by The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year."



p.s. I would like to offer appreciation of your efforts at civil disagreement.

Not all trials are based on DNA or a few eyewitnesses. Sometimes the evidence is just overwhelming. (See other posts about Ted Bundy. There was no doubt he was guilty. He even told officers where to find some of the bodies.)

In such cases, I believe that if the crimes are so heinous, and the person so dangerous, that the death penalty is best for the protection of society. It is certain that if that person gets free, he will kill some innocent person. I believe that innocent person must be 100% protected. People escape prison occasionally. (Again, see history of Ted Bundy, who escaped and went on a torture, rape, killing spree.)

But I don't get to decide what evidence is overwhelming. And therein lies the rub. Sometimes juries get carried away with certain kinds of evidence, and rely too much on whether they like or don't like an eyewitness.

and that his guilt was indisputable. Just as I'm aware that most people who receive the death penalty are guilty. Most.

And no, we don't have to execute criminals to keep them from victimizing more people. Both of Bundy's escapes from custody occurred in conditions of ridiculously low security, when authorities had little idea of who or what they were dealing with. For instance, he was allowed access to a second story law library, was unshackled, and managed to jump out the window. It's incorrect to conclude there's a similar likelihood that somebody serving a life sentence can escape from a modern, high security prison.

My argument sort of boils down to the fact that there will always be an element of uncertainty built into the system of justice. Whether through human error or malfeasance, innocent people have and will be wrongfully punished. The execution of 1,000 Ted Bundys will never make it okay in my mind, to send an innocent person to the death chamber.

Those would be rare instances, where the crime is particularly heinous and the guilt certain.

There really is only one way to ensure that a dangerous criminal won't escape.

Much of the punishment of the death penalty, IMO, is the fact that they are on death row for years, sometimes decades. That keeps them away from other prisoners (and killing other prisoners, incl. the ones that were wrongly convicted), and also is extreme punishment, since they have few privileges and are confined in a small space much of the time.

I can empathize with the idea of revenge and justice or the "ultimate punishment". I have had friends killed and family members brutalized which lead me to thoughts of punishing the perpetrator. However, the idea that the State can decide to kill people and hold itself up as separate from the criminal is not logical. As another poster stated belief in using up to lethal force for self defense or defense of loved ones, I also believe that because you are defending against an imminent threat that is trying to deprive you of life and libery. When we have captured, even the most notorious killers, rapists, etc... we have prisons where there is no way they can escape. They are not a threat to society at that point. What I have seen in the "Yes" responses is the notion that there is no rehabilitation for them. Fine, we keep them in prison with no parole. Problem solved. Also, the idea of, "They have no place in society". Ted Bundy was executed but he remains as popular today because of all of the press he receives. He retains his presence in society despite our killing him. The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is not applied judiciously as we have seen people on death row exhonerated (so we know that innocent people have been put to death), and it rarely has any lasting positive effects even for the families of victims. It is institutional revenge, and a way for us to feel superior, even though it actually puts us in the same playing field as the criminal.

Because I empathize with revenge killing on an emotionally level, I'm against the DP.

almost a day after I posted this, to see the figures.

For the life of this thread so far, the breakdown of responses has been roughly 25% FOR the death penalty, 75% AGAINST it, with a little variation.

Without judgement, I must say the figures surprise me. Even though there are many individual threads and posts calling for executions, I had the impression that a lot of them were emotional responses to a particular crime. It does however, seem that roughly a quarter of DUers support the death penalty.

Thanks to all who voted (or will vote). It is enlightening to view the perspectives of others.

...particularly so, given the American fetish for executing the wrong goddamned people.

I can honestly say that I feel no justice or closure after the state executed the man that murdered my uncle. My uncle is still dead, and now another family has to feel anguish and grief because the state murdered someone they love. It's a no win situation for everyone.

It isn't an effective deterrent (murders are not more common in places without the death penalty). There is too much risk of executing the innocent. And it just puts the state - i.e. the people including me - in the role of murderers.

The UK abolished the DP over 40 years ago, and I certainly wouldn't want to go back to it.

Sid

Period.

I live in a DP state and I'm frieghtened of being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't fall for the false thinking that if I don't do anything I should have nothing to worry about. As long as there is a DP I fear of it happening to me or any innocent person.

Besides it cuts the prison sentence down to alot. For example a man with a kilo of marijuana will serve 10-20 years while a death row inmate will usually serve 8-15 years. Spending life without parole is worse then taking the easy way out. I'd rather be put to death rather then serve life w/o parole. Also having a DP benefits serial killers believe it or not. All you have to do is have many victims the cops haven't learned about or don't have enough evidence. Enter a plea bargain and admit to those cases. The Green River Killer has killed 40 victims and gets life without parole because the Sheriff in the case proceeded the plea bargain in order to solve the remaining cold cases. As long as he gets life without parole everyone should get life without parole.

but I can't even get past relying on the system to be correct to get on to the tougher moral musings.

Admittedly, I've been considering it as appropriate for Cheney at least. So, I wonder if my meter would change if I could take the doubt and money out of it. I know Darth is guilty, he revels in it. I can't help but wonder if a public BushCo. spectacle might not do more good than harm. He's certainly a good moral compass test for me but in the end I think we should put this behind us as a species.

Heinous crime + certainty of actor - no significant mitigating circumstances = death penalty.