viscousmemories

Alright then. It is done.

On my command, "Away with the Death Penalty!"

Harumi

Here's what I think:

If there's a scum of the world that has killed many people, maybe even hundreds, then it is in my opinion that they deserve more than just the death penalty.

Think about it. One life for hundreds others. It isn't worth it. Now, if I could make that person feel what it would be like to feel each and every one of the crimes he/she committed, I would do it.

Death is too easy. Most of us don't believe there's anything after death. Just darkness. How much of a punishment is that?

No, I'd rather that person live, and live, and live. Especially those that are suicidal. I'll make them live, until they become sick of life and want to die, but can't have it.

To me, the death penalty is mercy. Making them live is my gift and my curse to them.

That's why I don't care much for the death penalty. It's too good for the scums of the world.

Note: this is all theoretical of course. I doubt that there'd be an actual way to make certain prisoners miserable. I'm sure there are those that will never be repentant, but at least I can make them live miserable lives in a hellhole in the time being. The feeling that they don't deserve punishment but can't get over it soon is just as bad, right?

Godless Dave

Like Gurdur I don't have problems with the death penalty in principle, but I oppose it in practice because any chance that an innocent person could be executed is unacceptable. Life in prison without possibility of parole is justice enough in my opinion. Minnesota is one state that has a real life sentence and no death penalty. My previous home state of New York did not. The legislature wanted the death penalty so bad they wouldn't pass a law authorizing real life sentences. They finally got what they wanted. That and Hillary Clinton are the two main reasons I'm glad I don't live there anymore.

I do not think the death penalty acts as a significant deterrent. IMHO most people who commit murder are not thinking about consequences when they plan and commit their crimes.

If someone tortured and murdered someone close to me of course I would want them dead, but raw emotionalism has no place in our justice system. Besides if I found out who did it I would kill them myself, I wouldn't expect the government to do it for me.

Jamie_L

I, too, am with Gurdur. I'm not going to argue that some people don't deserve to die for their crimes. They do. However, the death penalty in practice is not acceptable.

Generally speaking, the government should not be given any power it doesn't need. It certainly doesn't need the power to execute its citizens. Even assuming that the government never abuses this power (big assumption), it still has more costs than benefits.

The death penalty (DP) provides virtually no benefits over Life in prison Without Parole (LWP).

Statistically and logically, the DP provides no deterent. People willing to commit horrible crimes, almost by definition, are not concerned about consequences. They either assume they won't get caught or they don't care if they get caught.

LWP keeps vile people out of society just like the DP. The risk of escape/early release resulting in future crimes is extremely small. Recent death penalty problems suggest incorrect application of the DP is a more significant risk. Even if it is not, more weight should be given to protecting the innocent from wrongful execution than protecting them from escaping criminals who deserve the DP. This is inherent in the U.S. legal system, which places rights of the innocent above punishing the guilty. Furthermore, the risk of escape/early release is not a problem with the sentence itself, but with implementation. Solve the implementation problems.

The only thing the DP provides that LWP does not is a sense of "closure" to victims' families and friends. However, this hardly seems like sufficient reason to justify wrongul execution of innocents. And let's be clear, there can NEVER be a 100% perfect conviction and DP system. As long as the DP exists, an innocent will occationally die. Furthermore, "closure" may actually require execution of an innocent. If a victim's family believes an innocent man committed the crime, they get closure from executing that innocent man. In that scenario, is it really the right thing to do to execute the innocent man to give the family closure? I believe not.

The DP simply provides no benefits that outweigh the government executing innocent people.

Jamie

Stephen T-B

I’ve toyed with various ingenious forms of capital punishment, usually when I’ve gone out of my house and found a Pizza Hut pizza box, all soggy, lying on the grass verge just by my front door.
The miscreant, having been arrested, charged, tried and convicted, would be placed in a metal cage and dangled over a 500ft high cliff with a mechanism in it which, when hit by an unusually large wave, releases a catch and allows the condemned person to fall through a trap door in the floor of the cage to certain death on the jagged rocks below.
I like the idea of an interval in which the condemned person is able to reflect upon the act which led to this uncertain hiatus between life and death.
(Why, I wonder, do I sometimes catch my wife giving me a distinctly odd look, and backing away form me?)
Incidentally, I voted “No.”

pug846

And I think this is a particularly bad bit of psychology that comes from the pro-death penalty camp. It perpetrates the myth that closure comes in a moment; it doesn’t because it’s a process. We say all the time that “X brought closure,” when in reality, it’s nearly always time that brings closure to something.

Mad Kally

I've always been against the death penalty. They showed on TV the 100+ people who had been released from death row due to old DNA evidence. Thirteen people were mistakenly on death row in Illinois. They have finally done away with the death penalty in that state. There are approximately 14 states that do not have the death penalty at all. They can and do put people in prison for life with no chance of parole. (2 death sentences to run consecutively, etc) Sorry pz, but I just have to use the word barbaric. Reminds me of bible stories.

Jacey

This is a new passion of mine........just got my Free the West Memphis Three shirt Monday and I'm ordering the new book (Devil's Knot) today. But just for the record, it's Damien Echols on death row, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin were sentenced to life.

I think the death penalty is morally repugnant. As a society, if we agree that killing is wrong, then we should also be above executing criminals. Taking the high road I guess.......but I have no problem with life w/o parole. Besides it's a lot cheaper. I mean, Tim McVeigh is dead now.........so what? He's a willing martyr to his own cause, his death solved nothing.

Infinity Lover

I'd be with Gurdur (and not vote subsequently, or go for the third option at least), if I had the idea that a deathpenalty could ever work in practice, or exeptions might justify the rule.

So I went with no. It's barbaric (especially the process preceding execution), irreversable, and obviously doesn't solve anything as a deterrant.

As an alternative I think people guilty of crimes that would otherwise (ahem) justify life imprisonment or death, aught to be put into mental institutions, because they're obviously seriously fucked up.

VonEvilstein

The question:

Do you have a legal system that never, ever convicts the wrong person?

If the answer is "no", then you cannot execute prisoners - better to let a hundred monsters live out their lives behind bars, than become a monster one's self by executing an innocent man.

If the answer is "yes", welcome to Earth and please enjoy your stay.


I voted "No".