Allowing the serious offenders to live.

[Wannabe Yogi]

I don't believe adding another dead body into the mix genuinely helps the healing process.

You are correct in fact there is evidence that it hurts the healing process.

I read a study saying that says that it hurt the healing process. I can't find it right now. But this commission came to the same conclusion.

Richard Pompelio of the New Jersey Crime Victims Law Center testified before a state commission that the death penalty re-victimizes victims. Lorry Post, the father of a murder victim, testified before the same commission, saying that the death penalty just creates more killing, “and is a horrible thing which almost matches the horror of what some of us have lost by murder.” The commission concluded that “the non-finality of death penalty appeals hurts victims, drains resources and creates a false sense of justice. Replacing the death penalty with life without parole would be a certain punishment, not subject to the lengthy delays of capital cases; it would incapacitate the offenders; and it would provide finality for victims’ families.”

Also a bigger problem is that maybe 1 out of 8 people being "put down" might not be guilty of the crime at all.

In 2001 Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “More often than we want to recognize, some innocent defendants have been convicted and sentenced to death.” For every 8 executions that have been carried out since the death penalty was reinstated, one person has been exonerated from death row - over 120 people in 25 states as of July 2007. These exonerees spent an average of 8 years in prison before being released - time they can never get back. In January 2000 Republican Governor George Ryan concluded the system was broken after 13 innocent inmates were freed during the same period that the state executed 12 and placed an immediate halt on executions in Illinois. Additionally, there is considerable evidence that some innocent people have been put to death. However, there is no real process or funding for analyzing these “closed” cases to see if the state has erroneously executed an innocent defendant. (The Death Penalty Information Center, “Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide Through the Death Penalty Debate.&#8221

Race is also a very important part of who gets put to death.

Studies have consistently shown that defendants are more likely to get the death penalty if the victim was white. Studies of state death penalty systems have supported this: In 96% of the states where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern of either race of victim or race of defendant discrimination, or both. A study of Georgia’s death penalty system revealed that, even when controlling for hundreds of variables that might make one case worse than another, defendants whose victims were white were 4.3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than defendants whose victims were black. http://www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=45

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

On NPR I also heard a show that the people who are in charge of giving the death penalty to inmates in Texas. Are coming down with PTSD. One person testified that he dreams of the eyes of all the people he helped kill. What a horrible thing to do to those people. Maybe the Governors of the state should have to do it. Since they are the ones who should be responsible. And have the last say.

 

[Father Heathen]

I actually do in fact oppose the death penalty, but only because of the possibility of innocent people being falsely convicted and executed (at least with a life sentence they could be cleared, released and compensated, and like others have said perhaps life imprisonment is a fate worse than death), and not because of any concern for or value placed upon the genuinely guilty.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Also a bigger problem is that maybe 1 out of 8 people being "put down" might not be guilty of the crime at all.

In 2001 Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “More often than we want to recognize, some innocent defendants have been convicted and sentenced to death.” For every 8 executions that have been carried out since the death penalty was reinstated, one person has been exonerated from death row - over 120 people in 25 states as of July 2007. These exonerees spent an average of 8 years in prison before being released - time they can never get back. In January 2000 Republican Governor George Ryan concluded the system was broken after 13 innocent inmates were freed during the same period that the state executed 12 and placed an immediate halt on executions in Illinois. Additionally, there is considerable evidence that some innocent people have been put to death. However, there is no real process or funding for analyzing these “closed” cases to see if the state has erroneously executed an innocent defendant. (The Death Penalty Information Center, “Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide Through the Death Penalty Debate.”)

I think you're getting your numbers mixed up. Wrongly convicted people being exonerated from death row is the reason the appeals process exists. This does not mean that as of July 2007, 135 people had been wrongly executed.

I would be surprised to find out that as many as 10 people were wrongly executed since 1976.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I think you're getting your numbers mixed up. Wrongly convicted people being exonerated from death row is the reason the appeals process exists. This does not mean that as of July 2007, 135 people had been wrongly executed.

I would be surprised to find out that as many as 10 people were wrongly executed since 1976.

The blue writing. Is a quote from the site. Not my numbers.

 

[Willamena]

So I wonder, is it more ethically or morally right to allow serious offenders/murders/rapists etc to live even though what they have done is horrendous and there is a big chance they could do it again?

Yes. Which is to say that I hold "live" (or maya) as a value.

Would it be more ethically or morally right to remove them as a threat?

Would that solve anything?

 

[dust1n]

I think you're getting your numbers mixed up. Wrongly convicted people being exonerated from death row is the reason the appeals process exists. This does not mean that as of July 2007, 135 people had been wrongly executed.

I would be surprised to find out that as many as 10 people were wrongly executed since 1976.

Emphasized by meh.

If you come across the emphasized statistic (this being particularly available on various sites on the internet), correctly reference your source for the information. I'm not surprised to find out that you would be surprised that as many as multiple internet outlets report as being wrongly executed since 1976 to be the case.

For example, a quote like this:

"While organizations like the Innocence Project put tireless effort into remedying these miscarriages of justice, there have been at least ten instances since 1976 when the state put an innocent to death. Posthumous exonerations can help us ensure that these tragedies never happen again."

Death Penalty*:*Wrongful Convictions and Posthumous Exoneration

Which is a reference to this website, which paints a very different picture:

Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center

How "at least ten instances since 1976," turned into "I would be surprised to find out that as many as 10 people were wrongly executed since 1976," is beyond me.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The blue writing. Is a quote from the site. Not my numbers.

I'm fully aware of this.

I also am fully aware of the fact that the black writing is your words, not from the website. And you said: Also a bigger problem is that maybe 1 out of 8 people being "put down" might not be guilty of the crime at all.

I'm saying that the blue text you used as support for your point doesn't quite back you up. Even if your 1 out of 8 figure is true, which I suspect it isn't, it couldn't be derived from what the website says.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Emphasized by meh.

If you come across the emphasized statistic (this being particularly available on various sites on the internet), correctly reference your source for the information. I'm not surprised to find out that you would be surprised that as many as multiple internet outlets report as being wrongly executed since 1976 to be the case.

For example, a quote like this:

"While organizations like the Innocence Project put tireless effort into remedying these miscarriages of justice, there have been at least ten instances since 1976 when the state put an innocent to death. Posthumous exonerations can help us ensure that these tragedies never happen again."

Death Penalty*:*Wrongful Convictions and Posthumous Exoneration

Which is a reference to this website, which paints a very different picture:

Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center

How "at least ten instances since 1976," turned into "I would be surprised to find out that as many as 10 people were wrongly executed since 1976," is beyond me.

I based what I said on the fact that the DPIC website can only come up with 9 possibly wrongful executed. It would be surprising to me to know that all of those, plus an additional one, were all actually wrongful executions.

 

[Monotheist 101]

Note: I am from Australia where we do not have the death penalty.

I have always been the type of person who would say I dont have the right to take away the life of another person, and nor does anyone else. I watched a movie the other week that made me think about this stance. The movie was called The Brave One and if you havent seen it...long story short...the hurters get hurt if you catch my drift.

So I wonder, is it more ethically or morally right to allow serious offenders/murders/rapists etc to live even though what they have done is horrendous and there is a big chance they could do it again? Would it be more ethically or morally right to remove them as a threat?

I totally agree with you mate! We should be as lenient as possible. It is a matter of life and death, we can never be a 100% certain when making a judgment even when backed up with concrete evidence.

How can one man decide anothers faith?..That's the reason I think God is up there somewhere..

That being said, Jail terms should be long enough for criminals to get rehabilitated and they should be strictly monitored while serving their sentences, work should be done to encourage desirable behaviour, but at the same time, if there is no sign of improvement we shouldnt be afraid to slap on an extra 5 or 10 years, cant risk having a pedophile around my children ..

 

[Koldo]

You are correct in fact there is evidence that it hurts the healing process.

I read a study saying that says that it hurt the healing process. I can't find it right now. But this commission came to the same conclusion.

Richard Pompelio of the New Jersey Crime Victims Law Center testified before a state commission that the death penalty re-victimizes victims. Lorry Post, the father of a murder victim, testified before the same commission, saying that the death penalty just creates more killing, “and is a horrible thing which almost matches the horror of what some of us have lost by murder.” The commission concluded that “the non-finality of death penalty appeals hurts victims, drains resources and creates a false sense of justice. Replacing the death penalty with life without parole would be a certain punishment, not subject to the lengthy delays of capital cases; it would incapacitate the offenders; and it would provide finality for victims’ families.”

According to your quote what hurts the healing process is not the death of the criminal itself but rather the 'non-finality of death penalty appeals'. Is this also your opinion?

 

[outis]

The whole "Well look what she's wearing - she was asking for it" is nothing more than a way of justifying the action they decided upon.

So it's exactly the same. Both arguments are bogus for the same reasons.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That is an entirely separate discussion.

It's only a separate discussion because we're talking about so many other people being involved, really. A "society" if you will. If it came down to just myself and a murderer or rapist on a deserted island, and he/she tried something, I'd do my best to destroy that person entirely, until the chance of them coming after me again was an absolute zero.

Alternatively, letting them go after you have incarcerated them and (hopefully?) reformed them is sort of crazy. Think of it this way - what if the rule were "3 offenses and then death penalty"? That means that EVERY TIME you enacted the death penalty, 3 people got raped/murdered/etc. when it could have stopped after 1. In effect, all of us would be complicit in the second and third rape/murder to a degree, I feel.

 

[Marisa]

I am anti-death penalty because I believe our justice system should be restorative. With that, comes the understanding that some offenders will never be allowed to return to society. Currently in the US, our prisons tend to return offenders to society better criminals, which seems at cross purposes with what society generally accepts the mission of our criminal justice system to be.

 

[leibowde84]

Note: I am from Australia where we do not have the death penalty.

I have always been the type of person who would say I dont have the right to take away the life of another person, and nor does anyone else. I watched a movie the other week that made me think about this stance. The movie was called The Brave One and if you havent seen it...long story short...the hurters get hurt if you catch my drift.

So I wonder, is it more ethically or morally right to allow serious offenders/murders/rapists etc to live even though what they have done is horrendous and there is a big chance they could do it again? Would it be more ethically or morally right to remove them as a threat?

I think that it is cheaper (because of immense legal fees associated with death penalty cases and appeals) and safer, in that innocent people will not be killed due to failures of the legal system, to keep these kinds of thugs in isolation for the rest of their lives. The old saying always gets to me: "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

 

[dgirl1986]

I think that it is cheaper (because of immense legal fees associated with death penalty cases and appeals) and safer, in that innocent people will not be killed due to failures of the legal system, to keep these kinds of thugs in isolation for the rest of their lives. The old saying always gets to me: "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

I don't think it would be done to show that it is wrong but to prevent them from doing it again. It costs a lot of money to keep people in jail.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think it would be done to show that it is wrong but to prevent them from doing it again. It costs a lot of money to keep people in jail.

Not as much as legally putting them to death. but I'm also in the US, and I really don't know that much about Australian law.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I support the death penalty all the way. At the same time, the system does need to be reformed. Our prisons are horrendous.

 

[leibowde84]

I support the death penalty all the way. At the same time, the system does need to be reformed. Our prisons are horrendous.

hypothetically, if it was cheaper to keep them alive in prison wouldn't that be a better punishment? maybe we could even make them work.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

hypothetically, if it was cheaper to keep them alive in prison wouldn't that be a better punishment? maybe we could even make them work.

No. I don't see the point of keeping psychopathic serial killers like Ted Bundy around, for example. You know, he escaped from jail and assaulted and murdered some more women. Killing him put a definite end to that.