inmeitrust

The death penalty is a 100% deterrent to the one who is executed. Locking someone up for "life" is blatantly ignorant. People are in constant contact with lifers. Corrections staff, health care workers, other inmates. To give opportunity to murders to kill some more is immoral. There is also too many ways for a murderer to return to the streets.

We put to sleep mad dogs. Mad people should not be treated any differently. In these forums we laugh out loud at people who can't see we are part of the animal kingdom. Suggest putting down an human with the same argument and you are barbaric.

Most people here complain of convicting innocents. You're complaint is with the process, not the punishment. Of course part of a sentence is revenge. In addition to being a political animal, man is a vengeful one. I would happily pull the switch on a murderer to rid my community of that cancer.

What most people try to do is apply rational thought to irrational minds. Serial murderers don't operate on the same cognative level as the populace. They are mad and have no morals, allowing them to kill. The 10 guilties that you release to save one innocent is going to kill as many times as they can until caugt again. How many families will be devestated by an insurance policy like that.

By the way, if I was falsely convicted, I would rather be put to sleep than ass raped for life.

Old Man

That's a big problem for those opposing the death penalty in principle. You are condemning someone to a life of unjust, degrading and inhumane treatment.

Another is the exorbitant cost of finance of keeping people in jail.

I support a mandatory death penalty for a wide range of offences, including
- Autocrime (stealing from autos), causing death by dangerous driving, or causing death by driving without a valid licence
- Mugging
- Burglary
- Pornography
- Perjured evidence
- Robbery
- Swindling (where it takes place on a person's own property)
- Fraud against private individuals involving more than $10,000
- Rape of a stranger

However, the standards of proof ought to be far higher, and I would disallow any criminal conviction on the testimony of only one person, however trustworthy he may seem.

However, I disagree that the death penalty (or any penalty) should be imposed for
- Killing a person in the act of commiting a crime
- Killing a person for commiting adultery
- Killing a person in self defence

Vorkosigan

That's a big problem for those opposing the death penalty in principle. You are condemning someone to a life of unjust, degrading and inhumane treatment.

You're confused. You don't adopt the death penalty because your prison system is corrupt and incompetent, you fix the prison system.

Another is the exorbitant cost of finance of keeping people in jail.

As anyone could tell you, death is a lot more expensive than housing prisoners for twenty or thirty years.

However, I disagree that the death penalty (or any penalty) should be imposed for
- Killing a person in the act of commiting a crime
- Killing a person for commiting adultery

How strange. So if I chance upon two strangers committing adultery, I can freely whack them?

Vorkosigan

seanie

And if you come across someone looking at pictures of two strangers commiting adultery you can whack him too?

I'm not sure how popular this is gonna be.

Harumi

There goes COAS and LadyShea then. COAS used to work as a porn talent, and LadyShea was a stripper. I suppose you wouldn't mind condemning them both to death.

This is disgusting. Some of these 'criminals' can change. You're not allowing them any.

It's one thing to kill someone insane. Actually, I wouldn't really mind that, however against the death penalty I am. It sounds merciful to me actually. But against the crimes above? No. Never. Jail, perhaps, but not death. Or castration for the rapist. I feel sick just looking at that list.

openeyes

I oppose the death penalty, for the reasons outlined very well by copernicus.

Vorhis the Wolf

I fully suport the death penalty because dead men do no harm. Everyone is given their day in court and as far as the law in concerned they have never executed an innocent man. People shouldnt do the crime if they cant do the time. People are charged and convicted based on evidence. Things like fingerprints,DNA, hair and fiber samples, shoe and tire imprints, association with the victim and the location and if available eyewitness accounts. A modern court of law isnt some kind of Salem witch trial. There are real facts and connections to the person charged and the guilt of the offense. The only real improvement to fairness I could see with the death penalty is to allow the victims or their family to decide if it is implemented or not. If the victim decided to forgive their attacker then let them have life in prison. If the victim decides to not forgive then let court decide if justice will be regular or extra crispy.

Jamie_L

To quote your own words, "your complaint is with the process, not the punishment." Plus, "too many ways for a murderer to return to the streets," is more assertion than fact.

As I've said, I have no moral problem with killing criminals who deserve it. I believe, however, that the government and its legal process is incapable of perfectly implementing a death penalty. Thus, innocents are at risk. The DP simply does not have benefits that outweigh this risk. Especially in a country (the U.S. in this case) where the rights of citizens are placed ahead of almost everything else.

As would I. That does not mean I trust the government to pull the switch, especially when people in my community may be the ones getting injustly "switched".

How many life-without-parole inmates get out? How many? How many of those are psychoes who kill many times? Unfounded assertions all over.

No one is saying you couldn't kill yourself if you wanted to. And again, complaint with the process.

Jamie

Jamie_L

Right. And as far as the government was concerned at the time, they never beat a civil rights worker that wasn't breaking the law. It's just a good idea not to give the government (or any group of people for that matter) any power it doesn't need - especially something as powerful as execution. And let's be clear, the government doesn't need this power. The death penalty just doesn't significantly deter or prevent crime any better than life-without-parole.

No it's not. But it's still a place run by human beings. Prosecutors with agendas. Defense attorneys who may or may not be qualified or doing their best work. Juries that are crafted by lawyer's tactics who may be more swayed by charismatic arguements than evidence. Yes, modern courts are the best they've ever been, but in just the past year we've seen all sorts of people released from death row who were innocent. And DNA isn't the be-all-end-all that will make the death penalty 100% accurate. Yes, it's an improvement, but evidence is collected and processed by human beings. Human beings who make mistakes. Human beings who lie. Human beings.

This is not about the morality of killiing people or about forgiveness. It's a simple, all-American, conservative concept of not trusting the government with powers that can be abused, unless you absolutely have to. And we don't have to.

Jamie

inmeitrust

JAMIE L:
I really hate to take up so much space with general information I thought was really common knowledge. With a simple Yahoo search I found the following in less than 10 minutes. Housing violent murderers is simply too dangerous. Options to get out on the street again are parole, mental health loopholes, escape and other means. I thought these too were common knowledge that didn't have to be iterated and take up message board space. I also can't imagine a process where a person would be incarcerated with no contact with others and not have a cruel and unusual lawsuit. This is not a problem with the implementation of incarceration, it is a logistical impossibility.

But to try to coral a few unfounded assertions all over the place:

AJ Free to Murder Again
Original Air Date August 16, 2000
Kenneth McDuff is the only man in Texas history ever sent to death row, paroled, then sent back for killing again. In response to public outcry over its handling of McDuff, Texas spent over two billion dollars building new prisons and also overhauled its justice system. Known as the "McDuff laws," the legislation mandates tougher sentences and a complete retooling of parole practices

Vernon Joe was 19 when he was convicted in 1976 of helping two other men murder a prison guard during an attempted escape from the Southampton Correctional Center in Capron. Joe was sentenced to death, but the sentence was later commuted to life in prison.

By then, Silverstein had been convicted of a second prison murder -- this time the strangulation of a black prison gang member. Another murder soon followed. It involved Raymond "Cadillac" Smith, the national leader of a black prison gang who had sworn to avenge his fellow gang member's death.

He faced 50 years to life in prison with five habitual criminal charges stacked up against him...In March 1984, Knoke was paroled. Within a week, he committed three armed robberies in Denver. This time he faced 120 years in prison...Knoke pointed a gun at a child in Portland, Ore. Security guard Bill Hall tried to stop him. Knoke shot Hall in the heart....

The 317 killers who were executed between 1998 and 2001 had murdered at least 734 people.
That is an average of 2.3 victims per executed killer.

http://www.murdervictims.com/

The convicted murderer in the United States serves, on average, just six years in prison.
-- (Atlantic Monthly; Sept. '97, "A Grief Like No Other")

Also, you can't kill yourself. It is illegal. Trying to do so will land you in 24 constant watch or physically strapped down and medicated. Of course the best way to commit suicide in prison is to piss off the lifers, as they have nothing to lose by killing someone.

You say you have no problem with the death penalty as long as it is perfectly applied. When dealing with humans, there is no such thing as a perfect system. To have no problem with the idea, but give a blanket impossiblity for its existance is kinda irrational. Deailing with theoretical idealogies is fun and in a perfect world there would be no need for capital punishment (or incarceration of any kind for that matter). Our real world needs real solutions, of which the death penalty is an imperfect, but rational one.

Sorry for the long windedness, but succinctness seems to be out of favor here.