The Death Penalty

[Vigile]

Damn, Mr. Fire Department, it's like we were seperated at birth. I can always count on you.

 

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

This could absolutely be done but the results could get hairy. The costs is due to the appeals process. Speeding up the appeals process or deleting it altogether could lead to even more false applications and even more would slip through the cracks.

 

Of course it could be done, nivek style, with some manner of firearm. Or to save money on bullets, get some lummox to smash a cement block over the offenders' heads as soon as the verdict is read. I think lummoxes get minimum wage.

 

Of course, a great deal of money is spent on appeals, but, in general, death penalty trials themselves cost significantly more the trials which seek life imprisonment. Not to mention the toll death penalty trials take on the families involved, both the victim's families and the perpetrators. It's difficult to imagine what they are going through. Both families are suffering. One set of parents has had to see their child die. Why do we have to create another pair of grieving parents? To make the first pair feel better?

 

Without a doubt, cutting costs and speeding up the appeals process would lead to even more innocent deaths. It's just not worth it.

[pandora]

I wonder what if there is actual genes and brain behavioural chemicals for all kinds of crimes?

Would the Death Penalty be then invalidated or would it be immoral to change the genes and chemicals?

What's your opinion?

 

 

I think that all criminals that commit crimes that "deserve" the death penalty definitely have a biological component. Nature vs. nurture/environment is still hotly debated, though, as I am sure you are aware... I think it's a combination of both.

 

Given that, this is one of the main reasons I do not support the death penalty.

[Ouroboros]

And I think someone who has raped, tortured, and murdered someone has forfeited their right to be in the Human Being Club and lost all rights to be treated humanely in turn. Maybe that's a flaw, that I don't see such people as human beings anymore, but it's a flaw I can personally live with.

Very true. Most (not all) rapists and child/women-abusers were abused as kids. The victim easily turns into the perp. (but not all of them, many, probably most who get abused as kids, do not become criminals later)

 

I see no problem with killing someone who is trying to kill you.

But in a way death penalty is a way to kill someone that have a high potential of killing again when/if they get out. But again, the problem today with death penalty is that when someone gets it, they don't get it because of the threat they pose, but how horrid the crime was, which shows that the penalty is based on anger and revenge and not protection. And that's wrong, the state shouldn't act on mob mentality or media pressure, it should act on blind justice.

[Dianka]

And I think someone who has raped, tortured, and murdered someone has forfeited their right to be in the Human Being Club and lost all rights to be treated humanely in turn. Maybe that's a flaw, that I don't see such people as human beings anymore, but it's a flaw I can personally live with.

Very true. Most (not all) rapists and child/women-abusers were abused as kids. The victim easily turns into the perp. (but not all of them, many, probably most who get abused as kids, do not become criminals later)

 

I see no problem with killing someone who is trying to kill you.

But in a way death penalty is a way to kill someone that have a high potential of killing again when/if they get out. But again, the problem today with death penalty is that when someone gets it, they don't get it because of the threat they pose, but how horrid the crime was, which shows that the penalty is based on anger and revenge and not protection. And that's wrong, the state shouldn't act on mob mentality or media pressure, it should act on blind justice.

 

 

Woah, slow down there Hans. That first quote isn't mine, that's a quote I took from WhiteRaven to make a point.

 

How exactly do we know each person's potential to kill again? That's a terrible reason to put someone to death - we're killing them for a crime they didn't even commit.

 

 

 

Of course it could be done, nivek style, with some manner of firearm. Or to save money on bullets, get some lummox to smash a cement block over the offenders' heads as soon as the verdict is read. I think lummoxes get minimum wage.

 

 

 

Oh dear.

 

I say, if we're going to take them out let's do it the nice way. Force some Hemlock down their throats.

 

[Ouroboros]

Woah, slow down there Hans. That first quote isn't mine, that's a quote I took from WhiteRaven to make a point.

Ooops. The problem with replying and trying to remove some parts to keep the post short. I'm going to change the post above. Sorry!

 

 

 

How exactly do we know each person's potential to kill again? That's a terrible reason to put someone to death - we're killing them for a crime they didn't even commit.

That is a serious problem with death penalty. I agree. Personally I'm on both sides of this issue, because I think it's wrong to execute someone who potentially is innocent, or potentially can be cured, or won't be a threat to society. But I do understand the side that if something is a threat it has to be taken care of. And also to deter future criminals to do the same acts. But I think most convicts on death row shouldn't be there, but should have a life time sentence.

 

Sidetrack:

It's just like the movie Minority Report, people get convicted of a crime they're about to commit. But I asked myself when I saw the movie, how it can be justified to be convicted of a crime you think about doing, but you got stopped from doing, so you never did it, but still considered guilty of it. Minority Report have the same conflicting problem as the omniscient God vs free-will God. How can someone see the future, and then the future is changed so the event didn't happen, then what kind of future did this someone see then? Wasn't it just one possible future, while the real future actually was that it didn't happen?

[♦ nivek ♦]

Shiva penned:

Of course it could be done, nivek style, with some manner of firearm. Or to save money on bullets, get some lummox to smash a cement block over the offenders' heads as soon as the verdict is read. I think lummoxes get minimum wage.

 

Care to 'splain what "nivek style" happens to be?

 

Quite interested in what is being attributed to me might be.

 

kL

[Dianka]

 

Sidetrack:

It's just like the movie Minority Report, people get convicted of a crime they're about to commit. But I asked myself when I saw the movie, how it can be justified to be convicted of a crime you think about doing, but you got stopped from doing, so you never did it, but still considered guilty of it. Minority Report have the same conflicting problem as the omniscient God vs free-will God. How can someone see the future, and then the future is changed so the event didn't happen, then what kind of future did this someone see then? Wasn't it just one possible future, while the real future actually was that it didn't happen?

 

 

Another sidetrack: that baby in your avatar looks a little like a pre-cog from that movie.

[Ouroboros]

Another sidetrack: that baby in your avatar looks a little like a pre-cog from that movie.

True, only difference with a helmet.

 

Another thought about the pro-cogs and Minority Report, if someone can see the future crime that someone potentially could make, could this person also see why the other person would do it, what led up to it and such, and prevent the whole chain of events instead and prevent the future crime that way?

[lothartx]

Before I weigh in, I'm just wondering what the x-c community has to say about it.

 

I'm for the death penalty for crimes of extreme violence against inocents or extreme crimes against children. The way it is applied in the U.S. is not balanced or equal. I don't have a brillian idea on how to "fix" the system. I have my definition of extreme, but it wouldn't be the same as someone elses.

 

To apply the death penalty, come up with a basic check list, no loop holes. If you meet the "requirements" you get the death penalty. No regard to race, cultural background, sex or status in society.

 

No matter how "fair" you try and make it, there will always be a case where it would be "unfair".

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Shiva penned:

Of course it could be done, nivek style, with some manner of firearm. Or to save money on bullets, get some lummox to smash a cement block over the offenders' heads as soon as the verdict is read. I think lummoxes get minimum wage.

 

Care to 'splain what "nivek style happens to be?

 

Quite interested in what is being attributed to me might be.

 

kL

 

 

"with some manner of firearm"

[Guest Turkish]

Hmmmm I heard somewhere, out of 1000 Prisoners in the US execute 20-25 ppl are INNOCENT

Theres the Story of David Gale(for those of you who don't know David Gale, he was a innocent guy put on death row)......

 

I was once for the Death Penalty. Because as a 19 year old "Oldest brother/Replacement-Father" for my little sister and little brother(9 years since the death of my father).

I fuckin HATE child-molestor, child-killers and Pedophiles who exploit children........

To me, those motherfuckers need to Die asap....

 

But after hearing about Innocent People were getting Fried, Gassed, Lethally injected by the Government.....

I decided to shift my views.

Scary thing is, it can happen to any innocent person

[Ouroboros]

And here's some morbid reality, Clarence Allen who recently was put to death, was blind, had diabetes and had to use wheelchair. He had a heart attack last year, and was resuscitated. He was in such bad health, that they had the medical equipment to revive him if he would have another heart attack before the lethal injection. Ain't that something?

[Ouroboros]

Here's an article about a wrongly executed person:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...ack=1&cset=true

[Dhampir]

And here's some morbid reality, Clarence Allen who recently was put to death, was blind, had diabetes and had to use wheelchair. He had a heart attack last year, and was resuscitated. He was in such bad health, that they had the medical equipment to revive him if he would have another heart attack before the lethal injection. Ain't that something?

That happened near where I live actually. I know about that. That makes no sense. I also thought Tookie Williams should have been granted amnesty in light of his decades on death row and his actual benefit in recent years to society.

 

Dhampir, I realise that you are only for killing people we are absolutely sure did it. I am trying to tell you that we can't trust that to take place. Not only that, we can't trust prosecutors to apply it consistantly or even scrupulously. In an ideal perfect justice system you might have a case for the death penalty, but we don't live in that world. To support the death penalty as it is is to condone the killing of innocents in the name of justice.

Somehow someone has gotten the idea that I think we get it right all the time. Someone tell me where I said that.

 

Nature, severity, circumstances should all be considered when deciding the punishment, and whether or not to apply the death penalty. I don't understand the idea that life imprisonment is better than the death penalty if the reason you don't support that is that we might get it wrong. If that is the case, then life imprisonment is just as flawed and should be just as vigorously opposed.

If killing an innocent person is the worst thing we can do, then putting him or her away forever is the second worst, though I personally can debate as to which is truly worse.

 

In an ideal perfect justice system you might have a case for the death penalty, but we don't live in that world.

WRONG! A perfect system would leave the death penalty unnecessary in all but the rarest of cases, whereby the bulk of passion/temporary insanity criminals can be diagnosed and dealt with according to their likelihood to repeat, and the others can be properly rehabed (read: rehabed, not punished) for eventual recycling into society. Justice would be applied with much greater discretion and punishment would have a minimal place in the criminal proccess.

 

Death penalty, as well as Life imprisonment are representative of our flawed justice system, and would have little place in a 'perfect' order.

[Ouroboros]

I don't understand the idea that life imprisonment is better than the death penalty if the reason you don't support that is that we might get it wrong. If that is the case, then life imprisonment is just as flawed and should be just as vigorously opposed.

Except that you can't un-dead someone, but you can set someone free. You can never compensate fully for a mistake, but we can't compensate at all for executing someone by mistake.

 

If killing an innocent person is the worst thing we can do, then putting him or her away forever is the second worst, though I personally can debate as to which is truly worse.

True. Death row have the benefit that they protect you, and you have your own cell.

 

Death penalty, as well as Life imprisonment are representative of our flawed justice system, and would have little place in a 'perfect' order.

I don't know if perfect order is the same as perfect "treatment of the problem"... What you're leaning towards is a system where we can diagnose and treat every potential criminal. The perfect order is when only the guilty gets punished, and no innocent gets incarcerated. The perfect world would be when no one commits a crime. IMO it's a small difference. But, FWIW it's only my opinion.

[Dhampir]

Except that you can't un-dead someone, but you can set someone free.

95 years later when they are finally exonerated? If the death penalty is to be opposed on the basis of potential mistakes, then so to should be life imprisonment.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Except that you can't un-dead someone, but you can set someone free.

95 years later when they are finally exonerated? If the death penalty is to be opposed on the basis of potential mistakes, then so to should be life imprisonment.

 

 

So you have said, and apparently have ignored the reason why that's ridiculous. In case you missed....

 

I said...

We can tolerate that risk as long as it's not the final word. If death is out of the picture then they have the rest of their lives to prove their innocence.

 

Han said ...

Except that you can't un-dead someone, but you can set someone free. You can never compensate fully for a mistake, but we can't compensate at all for executing someone by mistake.

 

Now, I know it's tempting to just reiterate your position, but this time, why don't you explain WHY the death penalty and life imprisonment should be viewed as the same when considering the potential for mistakes in the justice system.

 

Somehow someone has gotten the idea that I think we get it right all the time. Someone tell me where I said that.

 

Somehow, someone doesn't keep track of their own words.

 

To me Justice seems fundamentally reactionary. Justice can't seem to be done until after a crime is commited. I personally dislike the concept, but I deal with it because I can't think up anything better. Reason I condoned the death penalty is it is simply a means to effectively and economically remove those who continually pose a threat to society and who cannot be recycled into it.

 

The what-if-we're-wrong argument is not valid here. We're talking people for whom there is no doubt of guilt, and we know that by more than admission.

 

Did I misinterpret your straight forward words? It seems like you have confidence that the people of death row are there because there is NO DOUBT they should be there, because we have MORE THAN ADMISSION, according to you, in the cases where we execute people. WHat-if-we're-wrong, you say is invalid because obviously, you imply, WE KNOW FOR SURE THESE PEOPLE DID IT!

 

Try not to jerk me around anymore, please.

 

WRONG! A perfect system would leave the death penalty unnecessary in all but the rarest of cases, whereby the bulk of passion/temporary insanity criminals can be diagnosed and dealt with according to their likelihood to repeat, and the others can be properly rehabed (read: rehabed, not punished) for eventual recycling into society. Justice would be applied with much greater discretion and punishment would have a minimal place in the criminal proccess.

 

Death penalty, as well as Life imprisonment are representative of our flawed justice system, and would have little place in a 'perfect' order.

 

I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm quite sure you misunderstood mine. My point was that only in a system where we made no mistakes would the death penalty be truly morally tenable. You point that it would have "little place" is merely a reiteration of my point. Even in a perfect system the death penalty would rarely be justified. In an imperfect system it never is, IMO.

[Dhampir]

Did I misinterpret your straight forward words? It seems like you have confidence that the people of death row are there because there is NO DOUBT they should be there, because we have MORE THAN ADMISSION, according to you, in the cases where we execute people. WHat-if-we're-wrong, you say is invalid because obviously, you imply, WE KNOW FOR SURE THESE PEOPLE DID IT!

 

Try not to jerk me around anymore, please.

I figured that phrase was where it came from. I said 'we are talking about people for whom there is no doubt of guilt' Would you like to tell me that there is noone who would fit such a bill? These mostly extend to people who are by their own admission guilty, who behind bars exhibit those qualities consistent with violent and/or murderous mentality. Tell me such people don't exist. To me that would imply that my support of the death penalty requires a very strict handling thereof.

 

Now, I know it's tempting to just reiterate your position, but this time, why don't you explain WHY the death penalty and life imprisonment should be viewed as the same when considering the potential for mistakes in the justice system.

I simply believe that it is criminal to detain a person with the vague and often impossible hope of exoneration. While it is definitely more likely these days that exoneration can occur, that is still a risk. I'd impose life imprisonment in situations where I felt it just in the same manner that I'd prescribe death where I felt it warranted. The one would require just as much certainty as the other to me; either take the same approach to one as the other, or do away with both. Basically what I'm saying is that I could support both under those circumstances. Either could be valid with reform, although I tend to think in terms of quality of life, rather than life at any cost.

 

 

I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm quite sure you misunderstood mine. My point was that only in a system where we made no mistakes would the death penalty be truly morally tenable. You point that it would have "little place" is merely a reiteration of my point. Even in a perfect system the death penalty would rarely be justified. In an imperfect system it never is, IMO.

Actually what I was saying was that in a system whereby rehabilitation was actual and not concordant, at least for the most part, with punishment, the death penalty would be imposed in those rare circumstances where a person could not be rehabilitated, not as punishment, but as a final resort in the legal system to put an end to those who could not be made to live according to that particular standard.

 

Of course, that scenario is straight out of science fiction, but who's to say it couldn't happen one day? I don't like to refer to the death penalty as 'capital punishment' as punishment is meant to impart a consequence that wouldn't necessarily have panned out otherwise, to impart a lesson, to force rehabilitation. I see it as a means to deal with those who cannot otherwise be dealt with.

 

I have not ignored your arguments, and I understand the problems with the system, so obviously I still see merit in the idea if it can be worked out. I could be wrong. I think I have to start a thread of my own to further elaborate.

[RankStranger]

I agree with Nivek that some people need killin'.

 

Problem is, our justice system has proven to be neither competent nor trustworthy to determine just which people need killin'.

[jjacksonRIAB]

The other issue I have with the death penalty is how it will be used. I cannot guarantee that a government would not use it to execute whistleblowers on fabricated charges to keep the word from getting out. The standards will inevitably slip. Look at what's happening already. People want to appear tough on crime so they raise imprisonment figures.

 

Then the death penalty and life are invariably applied towards killing a cop. Hell, you can get 20 to life just for killing a cop's dog.

 

That's bullshit.

[Biggles7268]

criminals are like a cancer on society, some of the lesser ones can be cured with therapy but the worst of them need to be cut out plain and simple. A tumor has no respect for your rights, you can't reason with it, ask it to leave you alone, you either kill it or let it kill you.

 

on the other hand though, our government can't be trusted to decide who deserves the death penalty and who doesn't, the justice system as it is now is broken. there is something wrong with a system that classifies drug use as a worse offense than rape or child molestation.

[Vigile]

Yeah, it would be interesting to know how many of the 3M people in the US prison system are there for violent crime and how many for drug use and repeated minor offenses sentenced under 3 strikes type laws. I would be willing to guess that stats are extremely lopsided. This is one reason why the government cannot be trusted to met out true "justice." Too much politics involved. What politician wins office by campaigning on lighter drug sentences?

 

 

criminals are like a cancer on society, some of the lesser ones can be cured with therapy but the worst of them need to be cut out plain and simple. A tumor has no respect for your rights, you can't reason with it, ask it to leave you alone, you either kill it or let it kill you.

 

[this isn't necessarily directed at you Biggles, your response just sparked further thought on the matter on my part]

 

You touched on one issue I have, the fact that the government cannot be trusted to issue out punishment fairly. Since we do have the ability to protect against further victimization by locking violent criminals away, I wonder why it is necessary to create further victims. Most criminals, whom most would agree don't deserve to live, do in fact have mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers that would disagree. Killing someone we think is "evil" may or may not achieve some poetic justice on one level, but it also victimizes the family who does not deserve to be further victimized. I realize that the family of the criminal's victims feel somehow victimized by life rather than death, but I would argue that the relief they would feel at the death of the perpetrator would pale in comparison to the pain felt by the family of the one who "deserves to die."

 

I do find it interesting that the sole surviving terrorist who killed the Russian school children in Beslan was just convicted and sentenced to life. Russia, a country known for a much more brutal approach to maintaining societal order than the US, has a moratorium on the death penalty.

[Biggles7268]

You touched on one issue I have, the fact that the government cannot be trusted to issue out punishment fairly.

I agree with you here.

 

Since we do have the ability to protect against further victimization by locking violent criminals away, I wonder why it is necessary to create further victims.

this I do not agree with, keeping people locked away in prison is expensive and we are the ones paying for it. we have far too many people in the prison system as it is. and as far as victimizing the criminals family??? the criminal did that when he/she "chose" to commit whatever heinous crime he/she has been convicted of. the person responsible for the crime is responsible for whatever emotional turmoil his family goes through because of it. while i do feel empathy for the families of convicted criminals, i feel more for the criminal scumbags victims and the family of the victims. and they deserve to see justice done.

 

I do find it interesting that the sole surviving terrorist who killed the Russian school children in Beslan was just convicted and sentenced to life. Russia, a country known for a much more brutal approach to maintaining societal order than the US, has a moratorium on the death penalty.

i find this interesting as well, i find it even more interesting that the Russian people would've torn him apart given the chance. the people wanted his death.

[Vigile]

Since we do have the ability to protect against further victimization by locking violent criminals away, I wonder why it is necessary to create further victims.

this I do not agree with, keeping people locked away in prison is expensive and we are the ones paying for it. we have far too many people in the prison system as it is.

 

We have already established that it costs much more to put someone on death row and kill them than it costs to hold a prisoner for life. Costs could be reduced, but at the cost of more mistaken convictions.

 

and as far as victimizing the criminals family??? the criminal did that when he/she "chose" to commit whatever heinous crime he/she has been convicted of. the person responsible for the crime is responsible for whatever emotional turmoil his family goes through because of it. while i do feel empathy for the families of convicted criminals, i feel more for the criminal scumbags victims and the family of the victims. and they deserve to see justice done.

 

I agree with you to a point, but it also feels a lot like the position of Pilot. We can wash our hands of the matter, but the fact is, we as society have control over the perpetrator's death regardless of the bad decisions he/she has already made. We do, if we want to, have the power to give the criminal's family a break on the pain that the criminal has already sentenced them with.

 

Goddamit! I fucked up the quotes