Godbert

I don't have a problem with the death penalty in principle.
And it's not that hard only to convict people when you are 100% sure. There are public crimes, crimes on tape, DNA evidence, unforced admissions, whatever...
What's so much worse about death than life in jail? I'd certainly rather be dead than sit in a small badly lit room wiggling my thumbs for the rest of my life.

PS: I also find it curious that more discussion is going on in america about the death penalty than about killing foreign civilians (who are not convicted killers, rapists...) by the hundredthousands.

lunachick

Some things to consider when questioning WHY you have capital punishment. As copernicus has noted, it probably has as much to do with revenge as it does 'punishment'.

What do you hope to achieve by having a death penalty? How would you see it affecting society, and society's view to violent crime? One would hope that criminologists and the justice system would be trying to look for answers in reducing violent crime, rather than simply sending everyone to some kind of 'mortal payback'.

Also, I'd imagine that some fucked-up desperado robbing the local liquor store is more likely to kill if he believes that will increase his chances of escaping such dire punishment. And would be more likely to kill police officers who were too near the scene.

Also, say, in the case of rape - rape a women and the death penalty maybe what you pay? Wouldn't it then be better to kill the woman as well, if it increases your chances of getting of scot-free?

The death penalty strikes me as being a lot like Russian Roulette.

I read through this website: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html#STUDIES
and found some interesting facts.

And some rather worrying facts - (you know who you are!!! )

Anyway, here's a taste of them - I hope anyone here who is in absolute favour of the death penalty, visits the site.

Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty: Another Examination of OklahomaÕs Return to Capital Punishment. In this study, author William Bailey speculated that if executions had a deterrent effect in Oklahoma, it would be observable by comparing murder rates and rates of sub-types of murder, such as felony-murder, stranger robbery-related killings, stranger non-felony murder, and argument-related killings, before and after the resumption of executions. Bailey examined the period between 1989 and 1991 for total killings and sub-types of killing. After controlling for a number of variables, Bailey found that there was no evidence for a deterrent effect. He did, however, find that there was a significant increase in stranger killings and non-felony stranger killings after Oklahoma resumed executions after a 25-year moratorium. (36 Criminology 711-33 (1998)).

The Geography of Execution: The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America. Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood studied differences in homicides and violent crime in 293 pairs of counties. Counties were matched in pairs based on geographic location, regional context, historical development, demographic and economic variables. The pairs shared a contiguous border, but differed on use of capital punishment. The authors found no support for a deterrent effect of capital punishment at the county level comparing matched counties inside and outside states with capital punishment, with and without a death row population, and with and without executions. The authors did find higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties. (Rowman and Littlefiled Publishers, Lanham, MD (1997))

South Has Highest Murder Rate in 2001
According to data released on October 28 as part of the FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2001, the South again has the highest murder rate of the four regions in the United States. The South was also the only region above the national average. In 2001, almost 80% of executions in the country occurred in the South. The report noted that the Texas crime rate rose 4% in 2001, nearly five times the national average, and the state posted a 7.6% increase in homicides. At the same time, the total number of executions in Texas is more than three times that of any other state in the nation. The Northeast, the region with the lowest murder rate, had no executions in 2001. (See DPIC's Execution Statistics, Crime in the United States, 2001, New York Times and Houston Chronicle, October 29, 2002)

Deterrence: Homicide Rates Fall in Canada After Abolition of Death Penalty
The abolition of the death penalty in Canada in 1976 has not led to increased homicide rates. Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished. In addition, homicide rates in Canada are generally three times lower than homicide rates in the U.S., which uses the death penalty. For example, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population and the rate in Canada was only 1.8. Canada currently sentences those convicted of murder to life sentences with parole eligibility. (Issues Direct.com, 8/4/02).

Deterrence & Murder of Police Officers
According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of all executions (90% in 2000). From 1989-1998, 292 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the south, 125 in the west, 121 in the midwest, and 80 in the northeast, the region with the fewest execution - less than 1%.
The three leading states where law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in 1998 were California, the state with the highest death row population (7); Texas, the state with the most executions since 1976 (5); and Florida, the state that is third highest in executions and in death row population (5). (FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 1998)

lunachick

Perhaps the mentality is the same. The de-humanising of those you see as being lesser than those of a "good Christian society", and the revenge and retribution inherent in the death penalty. Just the crime is more 'global', if you like. But America is still acting as Judge and Jury, and sentencing another to death. Same states of mind in either situation, if you ask me.

But anyway, this is a whole other issue.

Answerer

I supported death penalty not because I'm a sadist bastard. But because there is some people in the world that just need to be stopped. For example, I don't recommend showing mercy to the likes of Osama, Saddam, etc while wishfully hoping that they will repent if they are to be caught.

And I do agree that death penalty must be used as a 'last form of resort' either to reform a criminal or to maintain social justice.

Celsus

What copernicus said.

Oh and what Doubting Didymus said as well, just to make him happy.

Rousseau_CHN

No I do not support death penalty because

1.) it gives the state too much power
2.) Resorting to death penalty is simply indolence on the part of the state
3.) ten criminals set free is better than one innocent man put to death (classic argument)
4.) death penalty (or any harsh punishment) does not deter crime. Effective law enforcement does.
5.) Too simplistic.

red robot

I couldn't have said it better (so I won't try). death is life, right? war is peace? something like that.

The death penalty seems to be one of many blood-thirsty american-government ideals. My country has its good points, i'm sure, but most of the time i'm just embarassed.

rr

Mageth

I don't support the death penalty. I used to be a strong advocate of it, but I've changed. It's useless as a deterrent, and there is the risk that innocent people will be executed. And it's inhumane.

There's also the problem of the disparity of the death penalty sentence between African-Americans and others. Being black is the third-highest predictor on whether a defendant will be given the death penalty in the U.S., after "murder with torture" and "grave risk of death to others":

Death penalty statistics

The problem of innocent people being convicted goes beyond those sentenced to the death penalty. One could make a similar argument for those given any prison term, and for those now given the death penalty were instead sentenced to life without parole. It's no more right to lock an innocent person up for life than it is to execute the person, though it's perhaps more humane. The solution to this problem is to do everything in our power to not convict the innocent. But no matter what we do, there will probably always be some innocent people wrongly convicted. We should never risk executing innocent people.

Bill Snedden

I also voted "no" for many of the reasons already posted here: it's an imperfect and often unjust system, it's irrevocable, and it's inhumane.

It seems to me that the majority of calls for the death penalty are based on emotion rather than reason. If life without the possibility of parole has the same effective outcome as death, for what reason other than revenge should we prefer putting someone to death?

Regards,

Bill Snedden
-------------------------
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends..." Gandalf in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings

beyelzu

I voted yes, I am for the death penalty.

I am not for the way it is now. It should be a more streamlined process. And it should be reserved for people who are found guilty of multiple murders.