Is the death penalty right?

[Sunstone]

Welcome to the Forums, Rick!

I share your opposition to the death penalty, but not for the same reasons as you hold. My opposition stems from my belief that human justice is fallible and that the death penalty has been applied to innocent people. I think life in prison is all around a better course than the death penalty.

 

[Rick123123]

Yeah, not really nice letting innocent people die like that lol.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hehee, I agree with both of you. Those are some very good reasons.

 

[Crystallas]

If someone kills my parents, my kids, my wife, my best friend...ect You can't expect me want this person to live. Not only live, but live a life provided with my tax money, while my kids dont have accurate text books in school? They continue living with the chance of being released one-day due to good conduct and overpopulated prisons.

Maybe if we fried more proven killers, we wouldnt have these over-populated prisons and we wouldnt have all this violence.
People want a seperation of church and state, but they also want to value peoples lives that have takken other peoples lives away. You can't have both. Atleast I dont think you can, maybe you can make it look like we can have it on paper, but it doesn't work IRL.

 

[Scott1]

Is the death penalty right?

My version:
No, no, and heck no.

The CCC:
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.


If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

 

[Feathers in Hair]

If someone kills my parents, my kids, my wife, my best friend...ect You can't expect me want this person to live.

I don't. If something like that happened to me, I imagine I wouldn't want that person to live, either. That's why I'm glad that the situation wouldn't be in my hands because I would not want another person to die for the horror- even if they were the ones that had caused the horror.

Not only live, but live a life provided with my tax money, while my kids dont have accurate text books in school?

I fear that's more due to the policies of the current administration than due to anyone being in prison. Why make sure people are educated, when you can give tax cuts?

They continue living with the chance of being released one-day due to good conduct and overpopulated prisons.

Then reform the justice system. I'd love to be sure that no-one who's sentanced for killing a person ever leaves jail. (Before you bring up overcrowding if one did this, please see below.) The justice system, as it is today, is more likely to sentence a man to death if he is of one race than if he is another. That's only one of many inconsistencies- the biggest of which is convicting innocent people. To risk putting innocent people to death in the name of revenge is barbaric.

Maybe if we fried more proven killers, we wouldnt have these over-populated prisons and we wouldnt have all this violence.

Overpopulated prisons... I don't have any hard facts on this, but I think the reason that they are overcrowded is more due to us punishing people who do drugs than it is to holding killers. If prisons are so overcrowded, let's send those people to treatment centers, unless they've actually hurt someone other than themselves.

People want a seperation of church and state, but they also want to value peoples lives that have takken other peoples lives away. You can't have both. Atleast I dont think you can, maybe you can make it look like we can have it on paper, but it doesn't work IRL.

Why doesn't it work in real life? Have we tried it?

Edited to thank Scott for bringing up a great point. It's not that I can't see both viewpoints... I'm not sure if (in such a topic as this) it would be healthy not to be able to see where the other person is coming from.

 

[jamaesi]

But my comments earlier in this thread was about people who have already been caught and convicted and removed from the public.

That would be nice if they did stay away from the public. But if you saw my post here (number 11)... that´s certainly not keeping them away from the public.

I think that nonviolent criminals should be educated and rehabilitated.

Violent criminals deserve death.

 

[Valjean]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The penalty is identical to the offense.

 

[capthowdy]

Well looking at it objectively it can take two sides and there in lies the decision. On one hand, from not only a christain standpoint but a moral one, taking life is wrong?....Yes and with that in thought who is fit to say this person dies and this one doesn't? Then on the other hand, there is always the "what if somebody killed some one you love?" With that veiw most people would seek retribution........and of course the political veiw..that Crystallas brought up......how much money should come out of peoples' pockets to allow those facing the death penalty to live, over populated prisons and what not. The question would be how much is a persons life worth? The answer can be quite subjective, not depending on political or philosophical stance...but the indivindual situation itself.



Am I for the death penalty, yes I am...I believe we make decisions and we need to accept the consequences of those decisions.

 

[Valjean]

Doesn't God reserve retribution for Himself?

I've read that the total expenses involved in trying and executing an offender exceed those incurred in imprisoning him for life. Counterintuitive, true, but a reputable source.

Is public expense really a factor in right vs wrong? This sounds more like expedience than ethics.

 

[capthowdy]

Depends on your religious veiws..





Public expense can become a factor, shaping some ones stance on the issue..

 

[Fluffy]

I have seen the following arguments for the death penalty and against life imprisonment:

1) Emotional
This could involve anything from disgust at a gruesome murder or rape to revenge from the perspective from the victim or victim's family. I have lost respect for any kind of emotional response ever since I first heard the argument "Homosexuality is wrong because it disgusts me". I cannot see the difference between this argument and "Life imprisonment is wrong because criminals and their actions disgust me". If I find the the first unreasonable then it would be totally irrational of me to then accept the latter.

2) Economic
Such an argument... disturbs me. Firstly I believe it to be a sad reflection on human nature that money is even considered an issue when human life is under question. I find it equally disturbing when those against death penalty use it as their sole argument, effectively commodifying human life, as I do when it is used by pro-capital punishment types.

Secondly, it disturbs me because of the gross level of misinformation it demonstrates as it tumbles out of the mouths of those who are for the death penalty. Are they ignorant or is this a convenient way of pushing forward the death penalty because of their emotional responses (see number 1)?

[font=Courier New, Courier, mono]

The belief that execution costs less than imprisonment is false. The cost of the apparatus and maintenance of the procedures of the death penalty, including death row and the endless appeals far outweigh the expense of maintaining in prison the tiny fraction of criminals who would otherwise be slain (Anderson, 46). In most states the price of life without parole ranges form $75,000 to $1.1 million. While this might sound expensive it is pennies when compared to the expense of killing a criminal. Statistics have shown that the average price in trying, convicting, and sentencing a killer with the added expense of death row for years, equals to around $3 million. That is the same amount it takes to hold three prisoners in a maximum-security cell for 40 years. It has been estimated that California could save as much as $90 million a year if they abolish the death penalty. In New York $118 million could be saved, more then any other state. Other states that could also save money include New Jersey $16 million annually, Kansas 11.4 million annually and Indiana $5 million annually (Prothrow-Stith, 134). In California the average cost for the death penalty is $3.2 million and $2.3 million in Texas. Life without parole is the only way to go it costs less than a third of what it costs to execute a person on death row.

That is a brief overview. For more information on the economic issues go here: http://www.tcask.org/press-releases/20040713 press release - Tennessee Death Penalty Cost Study.html

[/font]

 

[Aqualung]

I watched a very interesting thing in government a few months ago about the death penalty. It said that, per prisoner, it is acutally more expensive for death row inmates than for regular ones. I used to be a staunch pro-death penalty person, but I realised it was kind of silly. It doesn't save money. It saves space, but they don't do that many executions anyway. there are only two arguments I have in favour now, but they don't outweigh the others. The first is that people who get "life sentences" are rarely in prison for life. If they changed it so that a "life sentence" actually meant what it said, that would be good. At least if they get the death penalty they won't get out again. The second is that prisoners have the easy life. They are guarunteed things like meals, medical care, and the like. My mother, who needs medical care, jokes about how it's too bad she's not a criminal, because she would have all her medical cares taken care of by tax payers, get three square meals a day, and get to play cards/watch television/play games/and the like. If they could make prison back to the way it was in the old days, where prisoners did something to earn to keep, and they repaid society for what they did (instead of society having to pay for all the things they get in prison) that would take away my second argument for the death penalty. At least the death penalty is a penalty, instead of letting a criminal live better than many law abiding citizens.

 

[michel]

I have seen the following arguments for the death penalty and against life imprisonment:

1) Emotional
This could involve anything from disgust at a gruesome murder or rape to revenge from the perspective from the victim or victim's family. I have lost respect for any kind of emotional response ever since I first heard the argument "Homosexuality is wrong because it disgusts me". I cannot see the difference between this argument and "Life imprisonment is wrong because criminals and their actions disgust me". If I find the the first unreasonable then it would be totally irrational of me to then accept the latter.

2) Economic
Such an argument... disturbs me. Firstly I believe it to be a sad reflection on human nature that money is even considered an issue when human life is under question. I find it equally disturbing when those against death penalty use it as their sole argument, effectively commodifying human life, as I do when it is used by pro-capital punishment types.

Secondly, it disturbs me because of the gross level of misinformation it demonstrates as it tumbles out of the mouths of those who are for the death penalty. Are they ignorant or is this a convenient way of pushing forward the death penalty because of their emotional responses (see number 1)?

[font=Courier New, Courier, mono]
That is a brief overview. For more information on the economic issues go here: http://www.tcask.org/press-releases/20040713%20press%20release%20-%20Tennessee%20Death%20Penalty%20Cost%20Study.html

[/font]

I understand why you say what you say, Fluffy, and there are always two sides to every argument, as you well know.

I also understand why you don't like decisions made on emotional grounds, but, like it or not, emotions are part of our life, and even though they have caused you pain, you cannot allow yourself to shut off emotion, as if using a tap.

To do so will cause you grief at some time in the future - such is the mind.

Your argument against basing the decision on economic grouds, in the matter of life and death is unfortunately flawed - although your motives and aspirations are of the best intent.

Decisions about life or death are taken with money being part of the decision making in every day life - on some level or another - medicine (The N.H.S in our country - one of the most obvious examples being the 'Post code lottery' in the prescription of medication; I can quote examples if you want me to).

Please don't get me wrong - I am not criticising your answer on any moral ground - your moral values are not in question; alas there is a difference between theory (ideals) and practice (reality). You would not be who you are today if you did not think the way you do; unfortunately you need (IMO) a bit more 'real life experience'. It would be interesting to print this out, put in in an evelope, open it again in 20 years time, and see what you then think...................

 

[Apotheosis]

I say yes as well, some criminals cannot be rehabilitated, and they sure cant be let free, so either letting them rot in prison living a fairly good lifestyle, or using the needle, I choose the needle. I sure as hell do not want the government to use my money to support the BTK killer, and his like. Of course, I am also in favor of making sure the criminal is in fact responsible for the crime he was accused of, which I believe can be done.

 

[Valjean]

Are you missing the point we've been exploring, Apotheosis? The govt. will use more of your money to execute a criminal than it will to imprison him for life.

 

[Apotheosis]

Not if I had it my way, no need to get to scientific, there are ways to ensure a quick and painless death without spending so much money.

 

[Ardent Listener]

I say yes as well, some criminals cannot be rehabilitated, and they sure cant be let free, so either letting them rot in prison living a fairly good lifestyle, or using the needle, I choose the needle. I sure as hell do not want the government to use my money to support the BTK killer, and his like. Of course, I am also in favor of making sure the criminal is in fact responsible for the crime he was accused of, which I believe can be done.

Your so very right! I work to darn hard for my money to have it go down the drain keeping the likes of the BTK killer in prision for life.:clap And if society makes the mistake of putting to death the wrong guy or gal once in a while.........well, that's the breaks. In most cases, they are probably guility of something that they got away with. We can't worry about everyone, can we? We got our pockets to worry about!

Go get them Tiger!Knockout

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Not if I had it my way, no need to get to scientific, there are ways to ensure a quick and painless death without spending so much money.

And if you were wrongly convicted of a murder, you'd actually want to have quick and painless death instead of the possiblity that someone might eventually present proof that you're innocent?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

And if society makes the mistake of putting to death the wrong guy or gal once in a while.........well, that's the breaks. In most cases, they are probably guility of something that they got away with. We can't worry about everyone, can we? We got our pockets to worry about!

Eeep, I'm sorry to ask this but I'm honestly not sure. It's hard to tell without a voice or facial expression, but are you being serious or sarcastic?