The Death Penalty

[kai]

Until they are paroled or let go early for good behavior and murders someone else. Are you willing to sacrifice multiple innocent lives to save a few wrongly convicted innocent?

I said for life, so the answer to your question is no. of course every case has to be sentenced on its own facts . the likes of San Miguel should never see freedom again in my opinion

 

[Tiapan]

Capital punishment is simply murder by a group instead of an individual. It achieves nothing. It is not a deterrent. It is often applied to those who are actually innocent of the crime. (Put your self in those peoples shoes). It is irreversible.

So every single American and Japanese (the only Western Nations retaining the death penalty) along with equally civilized, Iranian, Iraqi, Saudi, Pakistani, North Korean, Chinese, Burmese, North Korea etc citizens are murderers by definition as accomplices in the group killing of an individual. This is not one off, there are hundreds of these murders every year.

A country that has the Death Penalty is NOT a civilized country.

 

[McBell]

It is often applied to those who are actually innocent of the crime.

Source please

 

[McBell]

its more of a fact than an argument

My apologies for jumping the gun.

 

[Enoch07]

I said for life, so the answer to your question is no. of course every case has to be sentenced on its own facts . the likes of San Miguel should never see freedom again in my opinion

In the United States serving a life sentence you can become paroled after 5-15 years. Perhaps you wish to end parole for murderers, that I can understand. But as it stands today, you can murder someone and be free in 5-15 years depending on certain variables. 5-15 years in prison is not harsh enough punishment for anyone convicted of murder.

 

[EverChanging]

I have gone back and forth on this issue over time, but I'm more against it than for it. It is cheaper to sustain prisoners for life than execute them because of the process of appeals, but we can't get rid of those -- they save innocent lives that should have never been on death row.

If it can at all be avoided, I think it should be, no matter how heinous the crime was. However, if a prisoner is killing other prisoners or has escaped from prison or shown himself (or herself) capable of doing so, then I don't see how to avoid it other than perhaps sending the person to a very secure facility, and one may not be available.

Then there is the problem that innocent people are wrongly convicted and put on death row, very young people or mentally impaired people receive the death penalty, minorities tend to get the death sentence more often, etc.

I therefore lean toward abolishing it and a politician's stance on the death penalty would weigh in my decision to vote for her or not.

 

[McBell]

In the United States serving a life sentence you can become paroled after 5-15 years. Perhaps you wish to end parole for murderers, that I can understand. But as it stands today, you can murder someone and be free in 5-15 years depending on certain variables. 5-15 years in prison is not harsh enough punishment for anyone convicted of murder.

So you put them in for life.

Not the 'sentence' of life, as you have described above, but for the rest of their life.

 

[Aquitaine]

I only have one objection to CP, or rather one concern:

Most importantly, is that you may sentence an innocent person, this is always a very serious issue and it's what makes me 'iffy' about CP.


But on a principle level, in that we're presuming the convicted person actually was guilty of a serious offense (like murder etc), then honestly I see nothing wrong with Capital Punishment being applied.

I've noticed a lot of people here have said "but it too is murder, and it doesn't solve anything". Well, what is it supposed to "solve"?

What would giving him a life sentence "solve" in that case then?

The idea is to remove such people from society and to protect the Public, therefore what's the big deal? If it's cheaper and takes up less space to have the convicted person executed, then so be it - hang him, then brush it off, clean up his cell, and move on. One less scumbag to deal with.

I don't get it, why're people so sympathetic towards murderers?

P.S, I know that I'm now gonna get people saying "but the Law are murderers too if they execute him", but if you seriously cannot see the difference between the two.........

 

[kai]

In the United States serving a life sentence you can become paroled after 5-15 years. Perhaps you wish to end parole for murderers, that I can understand. But as it stands today, you can murder someone and be free in 5-15 years depending on certain variables. 5-15 years in prison is not harsh enough punishment for anyone convicted of murder.

I think the worst case " life" should mean "the rest of your natural life", but its up to Judges etc in sentencing based on the facts of the case.

 

[kai]

I only have one objection to CP, or rather one concern:

Most importantly, is that you may sentence an innocent person, this is always a very serious issue and it's what makes me 'iffy' about CP.


But on a principle level, in that we're presuming the convicted person actually was guilty of a serious offense (like murder etc), then honestly I see nothing wrong with Capital Punishment being applied.

I've noticed a lot of people here have said "but it too is murder, and it doesn't solve anything". Well, what is it supposed to "solve"?

What would giving him a life sentence "solve" in that case then?

The idea is to remove such people from society and to protect the Public, therefore what's the big deal? If it's cheaper and takes up less space to have the convicted person executed, then so be it - hang him, then brush it off, clean up his cell, and move on. One less scumbag to deal with.

I don't get it, why're people so sympathetic towards murderers?

P.S, I know that I'm now gonna get people saying "but the Law are murderers too if they execute him", but if you seriously cannot see the difference between the two.........

so if the state executes someone who is later found to be innocent would you call that manslaughter? or a justifiable mistake? or a necessary evil? Its the sate i am concerned over not murderers. the very nature of the state. if the act of killing a human being is so reprehensible then no one should be doing it legally or not.

 

[Aquitaine]

so if the state executes someone who is later found to be innocent would you call that manslaughter? or a justifiable mistake? or a necessary evil? Its the sate i am concerned over not murderers. the very nature of the state. if the act of killing a human being is so reprehensible then no one should be doing it legally or not.

"But on a principle level, in that we're presuming the convicted person actually was guilty of a serious offense (like murder etc), then honestly I see nothing wrong with Capital Punishment being applied."

IF there was a wrongfull conviction that lead to execution, then it would be a grave mistake, but no more of one if the innocent man was sentenced to the rest of his natural life in prison and died.

Besides, you don't neccessarily have to execute ASAP, you could give him a few years in jail, or a few decades, then execute.

 

[Tiapan]

Source please

Columbia University, School of Law - Liebman Study

Cheers

 

[Poisonshady313]

i guess the death penalty doesn't deter the likes of Jessy Carlos San Miguel?

The state he lived in executed a total of four people in the previous year. Compared to the number of murders committed in any given year, 4 executions is basically nothing. It isn't being carried out often enough to be taken seriously. It can be... this nation just hasn't given it that chance yet.

Tell me folks does our job to punish the guilty take precedence over protecting the innocent?

Punishing the guilty IS protecting the innocent.

Too many tales of parolees killing again, or prisons emptying its cells to deal with overpopulation, leading to more victims.

According to the Innocence Project, 135 death row inmates have been exonerated since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. But how many people weren't exonerated in time?

That's not the fault of the death penalty. That's the fault of courts who sentence innocent people.

How many innocent people have died in prison, not having been sentenced to death? Should we abolish prison too?

Cameron Todd Willingham and Carlos De Luna: Two Innocent Men Executed by the State of Texas

The DNA that's exonerating inmates now should keep them from even being convicted in the future... thereby reducing, if not eliminating, the risk of executing innocents.

Cameron Willingham... there was 12 years that went by between sentencing and execution.... and 17 years that went by between sentencing and figuring out that he was innocent. A good question is, why did it take more than 12 years for this information to surface?

What would have been the difference if he was given life in prison, and was killed by another inmate in 2008?

And Deluna.... took 16 years to figure it out... in addition to the time he sat on death row.

The problem isn't in the existence of capital punishment. The problem is in the courts. If the courts are sending innocent people to die, those courts and those directly responsible (i.e. fraudulent DA, corrupt judge, lying witness, etc) should be held accountable.

 

[Poisonshady313]

minorities tend to get the death sentence more often, etc.

If there were no death penalty, then minorities would be getting life sentences more often.

as for actually being executed, more white people are executed than black people.


The death penalty isn't the problem. The courts are the problem. They need to stop convicting innocent people.

 

[Tiapan]

When Marice Brewer brutally strangled my aunt Carmen Walters, he would have been eligible for the Death Penalty here. However, it was clear that this young man had been so thoroughly brain washed by his zealously religious parents, that the confusion this caused when dealing with the real world, caused the resulting murder. He was declared insane, like diminished responsibility under the influence.

Executing him would not have achieve anything and certainly wasn't going to bring Carmen back. The real solution in this instance is to moderate the extreme religious sects back to a social norm.

Australia removed the Death Penalty from the Statutes in the 1960's after the controversial political execution of Ronald Ryan, who may well have been innocent of the crime he was hung for.

Cheers

 

[Poisonshady313]

When Marice Brewer brutally strangled my aunt Carmen Walters, he would have been eligible for the Death Penalty here. However, it was clear that this young man had been so thoroughly brain washed by his zealously religious parents, that the confusion this caused when dealing with the real world, caused the resulting murder. He was declared insane, like diminished responsibility under the influence.

Executing him would not have achieve anything and certainly wasn't going to bring Carmen back. The real solution in this instance is to moderate the extreme religious sects back to a social norm.

How did religious zealotry lead him to strangle your aunt?

 

[kai]

"But on a principle level, in that we're presuming the convicted person actually was guilty of a serious offense (like murder etc), then honestly I see nothing wrong with Capital Punishment being applied."

IF there was a wrongfull conviction that lead to execution, then it would be a grave mistake, but no more of one if the innocent man was sentenced to the rest of his natural life in prison and died.

Besides, you don't neccessarily have to execute ASAP, you could give him a few years in jail, or a few decades, then execute.

on a principle level all laws are to protect the innocent.

 

[Tiapan]

How did religious zealotry lead him to strangle your aunt?

Beyond Reason

Cheers

 

[linwood]

The death penalty isn't the problem. The courts are the problem. They need to stop convicting innocent people.

How would you suggest this be done?

 

[fantome profane]

The death penalty isn't the problem. The courts are the problem. They need to stop convicting innocent people.

When that happens then the death penalty might be worth considering. But not until that happens.