Do you support the death penalty?

[Milton Platt]

No. I am against it. I dont believe in taking a life period. No exceptions.

I'm pretty much with you Carlita.......but what if a person is about to take your life? Do you let it happen??? Or do you take his/hers to save your own?
I realize this is outside of the discussion, but just curious.

 

[Thana]

Continuing from another thread. Do you support the death penalty and if you do, what crimes should be punished with death?

What reasons do you have for being for or against? If you are for or against the penalty are there any exceptions where you think it should or shouldn't be applied?

Why does it always have to be either or?
I'm fine with or without the death penalty. Although they really need to make it more cost effective.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The problem is that you only need to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Except for when someone is actually caught committing the crime, that leaves a lot of room for bias, and a lot of room for loosing your life because the other side had a more expensive lawyer. And even then, eye witnesses can lie for their own reasons. Once you kill someone, if you find out a mistake was made, how do you undo it? Unless we can guarantee 100% accuracy and fairness in the court system, the death penalty should not be used.

My original post.

I lack the morality to be for or against it.
If it's going to be in place it should be as cost effective as possible, meaning just shoot them in the head instead of celling them for twenty years.

In the case of conviction, it should only be used in the cases where DNA evidence ties the criminal to the crime in a way that is undeniable.
As for the crimes, serial murders, serial rape, slave distribution and anything of equal nature.

Again, it should be cost effective. Shoot them in the head a couple times (double-tap) a day or two after conviction and be done with it.

-

I also think that death is not really punishment. It ends the ability to punish.

As do I, but most people don't and I felt that I was responding to one such person.
If my child were to be wronged in such a way you can bet that the man responsible wouldn't see sunlight or a painless day for the rest of my own life.

 

[George-ananda]

Interesting. I find it strange that people would force themselves to forgive such a person.
What ideology gives you that mentality?.

I didn't say I would 'forgive'. I said I would not want to 'think about' the person existing so if I don't think I can forgive without even thinking about the person behind it. Yes, complete avoidance of an unchangeable aspect of the event.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I definitely understand the impulse, but I don't trust the state with the power over life and death. Many innocents have been killed. Now, there are definitely people who the world would be better off without, but making a government institution out of that impulse is just far too dangerous and inhumane when you consider the social inequalities and human foibles that often skew the process of justice.

 

[Milton Platt]

I lack the morality to be for or against it.
If it's going to be in place it should be as cost effective as possible, meaning just shoot them in the head instead of celling them for twenty years.

In the case of conviction, it should only be used in the cases where DNA evidence ties the criminal to the crime in a way that is undeniable.
As for the crimes, serial murders, serial rape, slave distribution and anything of equal nature.

Again, it should be cost effective. Shoot them in the head a couple times (double-tap) a day or two after conviction and be done with it.

Sounds reasonable, but can't DNA be planted???

 

[Deathbydefault]

I didn't say I would 'forgive'. I said I would not want to 'think about' the person existing so if I don't think I can forgive without even thinking about the person behind it. Yes, complete avoidance of an unchangeable aspect of the event.

It is still rather strange, it's much too far out of my own nature for me to understand, I suppose.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Sounds reasonable, but can't DNA be planted???

Not necessarily, it's quite a difficult thing to do I should think.
But, hey, if someone wants a guy dead that they would go through that much effort then who am I to stop them.
All I know is what I would do, anything else I comment on within the subject is observation and inference or passing curiosity.

 

[Skwim]

Source please.

"Criminologists' Views on Deterrence and the Death Penalty

A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”

The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research."
source​

 

[Deidre]

Against it, as I believe two things, a) every life has value and it's a barbaric way to ''punish'' someone (and it's not just nor does it deter crime) b) there have been instances when innocent people were put to death. Incarceration for an appropriate time frame,, even for a life time, is sufficient.

 

[psychoslice]

I cannot support it because I couldn't do it myself if I had to.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm pretty much with you Carlita.......but what if a person is about to take your life? Do you let it happen??? Or do you take his/hers to save your own?
I realize this is outside of the discussion, but just curious.

Self defense is usually instinctive. Id probably use my instincts before moralizing about it first.

As a moral, I disagree with it. Instincts arent an excuse.

 

[Poisonshady313]

"Criminologists' Views on Deterrence and the Death Penalty

A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. ​

That's an empty sentence. Nobody can ever know how many homicides don't occur in any given place at any given time, because there is no expected number of homicides that ought to occur in any given place at any given time. Murder rates from one year to the next mean nothing. Populations change. Circumstances that affect means, motive, and opportunity change.

Murder not occurring is unmeasurable. The question of whether the death penalty has a deterrence effect is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

ESPECIALLY when you consider the fact that when you compare the number of executions in any given year to the amount of murder committed in a given year, the death penalty doesn't exist, statistically speaking.

Even if we compared the number of executions in a given year to the population of death row in that given year, the number is generally less than 2%

And that's if we lump all death penalty states together. Most death penalty states execute an average of less than 1 person per year (going back 40 years).

So how do you suppose criminologists determine whether or not a penalty which can hardly be said to exist has an effect on an event that cannot be measured?​

 

[That one dude...]

I would support it in serial murder or serial rape cases where wrongful conviction isn't possible and the prisoner shows no signs of remorse. In either case, they would spend the rest of their life in prison. Without a death penalty, that could be decades (like Charles Manson). With the death penalty, that could be up to a few years (long enough to know whether or not they can change).

I would argue that spending decades in prison is more cruel than a few years. Also, given enough time to formulate a plan and execute it perfectly, there is the slightest of chances the prisoner (or multiple prisoners) could escape. There is exactly zero chance with a death penalty.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Continuing from another thread. Do you support the death penalty and if you do, what crimes should be punished with death?

What reasons do you have for being for or against? If you are for or against the penalty are there any exceptions where you think it should or shouldn't be applied?

Yes, I support the death penalty. Capital crimes deserve capital punishment.

What crimes should be punished with death? Murder in the 1st degree, with any one or more given aggravated factors.

Also, I would expand the death penalty to individuals (even those that have never committed murder) whom the courts decided would never be eligible to be free ever again:
Life without parole
Multiple life sentences,
Unusually long sentences (especially where the number of years has triple digits)

Prisoners who commit murder while serving time, regardless of whether the victim was a guard or a fellow inmate, ought to be put on the fast track to execution (i.e. within a year)

 

[Skwim]

That's an empty sentence. Nobody can ever know how many homicides don't occur in any given place at any given time, because there is no expected number of homicides that ought to occur in any given place at any given time. Murder rates from one year to the next mean nothing. Populations change. Circumstances that affect means, motive, and opportunity change.

Murder not occurring is unmeasurable. The question of whether the death penalty has a deterrence effect is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

ESPECIALLY when you consider the fact that when you compare the number of executions in any given year to the amount of murder committed in a given year, the death penalty doesn't exist, statistically speaking.

Even if we compared the number of executions in a given year to the population of death row in that given year, the number is generally less than 2%

And that's if we lump all death penalty states together. Most death penalty states execute an average of less than 1 person per year (going back 40 years).

So how do you suppose criminologists determine whether or not a penalty which can hardly be said to exist has an effect on an event that cannot be measured?​

From my post

"The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research."

Do you know what the empirical research said? Of course you don't, and neither do I. But I do know that people of stature who answered on their basis of their understanding of the research aren't so dumb as to not take the points you bring up into consideration.




​

 

[Jumi]

In my country Finland there is no death penalty though we have a history of it. We used to be a part of Czarist Russia, which banned the death penalty in 1800s against other crimes than treason or crimes against the Czars family. Death penalties were commuted to banishment in Siberia.

Last non-treason peacetime execution was a man who was beheaded in 1825 for manslaughter, given a twenty silver coin fine and buried outside of church grounds for charges of contempt of court, getting drunk and ruining holiday spirit of Christmas.

Like most Finns I was against the death penalty. Several crimes during the last decade have slowly changed my mind to being for the death penalty. An example included a child rapist who served a sentence to only murder and kill children again. He is set to be free again and it's very likely that he will kill again given the chance. There were several rape-murders including one where a 17 year old was raped and burned alive which I think deserve the capital punishment.

The penalty should only be handed out in cases where evidence is conclusive. Murder cases where the culprit is only tied to a murder by DNA, motive etc should not be eligible for it.

 

[Jumi]

Why does it always have to be either or?

I didn't purposefully exclude other options so your view is as welcome as ones for or against.

I'm fine with or without the death penalty. Although they really need to make it more cost effective.

Court costs for it will likely remain much higher no matter what in any country that cares for due process.

edit: by the way I won't hand out likes on this thread even when I agree with someone

 

[Smart_Guy]

In another thread I said this, and I'll just copy and post it here in quotes instead of with the quote feature:

"Let's see, I'm not having specific crimes in mind, but at least the murderers in this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rderers-given-life-jail-freed-kill-again.html
should have been executed instead of imprisonment for some time, going out again and committing further murder. Execution of one murderer, even if it is for a small future doubt, is absolutely better than having the slightest possibility of them murdering more innocent people. It is also not like I'm in favor of execution of bystanders, I'm talking about inhumane murders and similar crimes like brutal child sexual rape for example."

Now, I can't argue with those okay with having a risk of having themselves or those they care about murdered or brutally sexually raped, but I for sure don't want to take that risk. Maybe other methods are good to take the place of the death penalty, but ever since the dawn of humanity, such methods have never proven 100% applicable and perfect to all humanity. Death penalty puts a perfect end to the convict since death is the end of everything to who gets it. If death penalty were the sentence for those in the article I provided above, the innocent who are certainly have more right to live than those criminals, would have not died.

 

[Kirran]

In another thread I said this, and I'll just copy and post it here in quotes instead of with the quote feature:

"Let's see, I'm not having specific crimes in mind, but at least the murderers in this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rderers-given-life-jail-freed-kill-again.html
should have been executed instead of imprisonment for some time, going out again and committing further murder. Execution of one murderer, even if it is for a small future doubt, is absolutely better than having the slightest possibility of them murdering more innocent people. It is also not like I'm in favor of execution of bystanders, I'm talking about inhumane murders and similar crimes like brutal child sexual rape for example."

Now, I can't argue with those okay with having a risk of having themselves or those they care about murdered or brutally sexually raped, but I for sure don't want to take that risk. Maybe other methods are good to take the place of the death penalty, but ever since the dawn of humanity, such methods have never proven 100% applicable and perfect to all humanity. Death penalty puts a perfect end to the convict since death is the end of everything to who gets it. If death penalty were the sentence for those in the article I provided above, the innocent who are certainly have more right to live than those criminals, would have not died.

1) In the case you highlighted of the murderers, there are options other than 'fixed-term sentence followed by release' and 'being killed by the state'. Life imprisonment, namely.

2) You are assuming that the convict reaching this perfect end is definitely a convict. There have been cases where people have been convicted and given the death penalty, and later found to be innocent.

I think the state should be held to the same moral standards as ourselves. Killing is bad, this is something pretty central to most religions and moral systems. Certainly it's there in the ten commandments and features prominently in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. I don't know if this is the case in Islam, but I would rather hope so.