These 5 inmates will be executed after Attorney General William Barr told the federal government to

[The Reverend Bob]

It DOESN'T do that. There are no studies to suggest it is an effective deterrent, and to the contrary, countries that abolish the death penalty often see a decrease in homicides.

If the threat of your relatives being deprived doesn't deter a person from depriving another family of a loved one, then I guess that person didn't really care about their own relatives. It should deter a reasonable person of conscience to not deprive anyone of a relative because the threat of your relative also being deprive is present.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It DOESN'T do that. There are no studies to suggest it is an effective deterrent, and to the contrary, countries that abolish the death penalty often see a decrease in homicides.

That's all the more why we should execute certain types of people with that type of disposition to unmercifully and brutally kill other people.

Since you can't deter or rehabilitate types of people like that, it's best to kill them outright given the propensity for them to repeat such acts of violence and brutality in or out of prison on other people.

There is no real reason to keep these people alive.

 

[Enoch07]

It's a commandment Christians were given, not me.
Killing the killer does nothing except kill them, it settles nothing, it resolves nothing, it won't even deter future murders but encourage killing witnesses. It's not justice, it's vengeance. The victims have already been victimized, relived it, testified in court, and killing someone else doesn't help them. But it does cause someone else to lose a daughter, father, aunt, or uncle. Losing a loved one is never fixed by making someone else lose a loved one.

It will stop that killer from killing again though. A killer is statistically more likely to commit murder again someone who has never murdered. It's like the first one is hard and each subsequent one is easier.

 

[Neutral Name]

There is appeals processes etc. The law should be followed. To insure the lowest amount of error possible. No (human) system is perfect though. So occasionally an innocent may be convicted. It's unfortunate but necessary to protect potential victims.

4 out 5 of those criminals are convicted of hurting/raping/murdering children.

When someone molest a child it has ripple effects that reach multiple generations of innocent victims sometimes. It not only ruins the life of the victim but also their own children suffer from the parents abused childhood, and sometimes even further down before the damage is done.

I can forgive a thief.

I can forgive a murderer.

But I won't shed a tear for anyone that would harm a child.

I agree with you. I have three grown children and three grandchildren. If anything happened to any of them, I would take the law into my own hands but I think that there are many more unjustly in prison than you could imagine. And not just people who hurt or killed children. Imagine if you were tried and convicted but you knew that you were innocent. Wouldn't you hope that someone would help you prove that you didn't commit the crime? The Central Park 5 were never found to have done anything. Yet, there are people to this day who will say that they are guilty. They were only in the area but there is no proof that they did anything. Innocent until proven guilty did not stand in this case. So, they went to prison without being proven to be the violators. Maybe they were but there was no proof. Supposedly, you can't be guilty without proof. I really distrust our justice system. Innocent people are sent to prison. That is heinous to me. I would think that I had lost much of my life if I were sent to prison for many years for a crime which I did not commit. Yet, it does happen frequently. That is horrendous.

 

[Neutral Name]

That's all the more why we should execute certain types of people with that type of disposition to unmercifully and brutally kill other people.

Since you can't deter or rehabilitate types of people like that, it's best to kill them outright given the propensity for them to repeat such acts of violence and brutality in or out of prison on other people.

There is no real reason to keep these people alive.

Only if you have absolute proof. Innocent people are often imprisoned. Our justice system is very far from perfect. It depends how good your lawyer is. If your lawyer can make up the right story and make it sound like proof of your innocence, then you will be exonerated. If the jury doesn't quite agree but acquiesces to the majority, then you can be found guilty. It is far from perfect.

 

[Curious George]

Capitol punishment is a ****ty deterrant.

That is not true. In theories of justice there is both general and specific deterrence. Death is the ultimate specific deterrence.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That is not true. In theories of justice there is both general and specific deterrence. Death is the ultimate specific deterrence.

I'm specifically talking about the effect of death penalty as a policy on crime statistics. There's no evidence that the death penalty deters crime and even some evidence that it makes crime worse (there's no punishment difference between just killing a victim and killing the victim plus any witnesses).

 

[Curious George]

I'm specifically talking about the effect of death penalty as a policy on crime statistics. There's no evidence that the death penalty deters crime and even some evidence that it makes crime worse (there's no punishment difference between just killing a victim and killing the victim plus any witnesses).

That would be general deterrence. Do you have evidence that any treatment of heinous crime acts as a general deterrent?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That would be general deterrence. Do you have evidence that any treatment of heinous crime acts as a general deterrent?

Does the treatment of any other heinous crimes provoke further heinous crime?

 

[Curious George]

Does the treatment of any other heinous crimes provoke further heinous crime?

Sure. Send someone to prison for years and watch the ripple effects.

 

[metis]

How many times have we seen "criminals" released from prison when dna confirmed that they couldn't have committed the alleged crime? It's bad enough if they were imprisoned but far worse if they were executed. Since we have jails and prisons, there simply is no need for capital punishment.

And as one pastor (UU) I listened to years ago say, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show the killing people is wrong?".

 

[pearl]

Barr also stated belief in the 'rule of law', cough, gag.

 

[SugarOcean]

23 Death Penalty Deters Crime Statistics

Other Posts:

• 13 Death Penalty Statistics by Race and State
• 23 Noteworthy Lethal Injection Statistics
• 21 Wrongfully Convicted Death Penalty Statistics
• 23 Dramatic Justifiable Homicide Statistics

 

[oldbadger]

I have no issues with sending these folks to God and let Him sort them out.

Would you carry out the killings if your name was drawn to do so?

 

[Shad]

It DOESN'T do that. There are no studies to suggest it is an effective deterrent, and to the contrary, countries that abolish the death penalty often see a decrease in homicides.

You point is made in isolation as if the sentence is the only factor.

 

[Enoch07]

Would you carry out the killings if your name was drawn to do so?

That's not how capital punishment works. There is a system set up to do this. The only way I could see myself doing this is if I was the one that caught them in the act of killing/molesting children.

 

[oldbadger]

That's not how capital punishment works. There is a system set up to do this.

That's a big fat 'No', then. You couldn't actually kill the restrained convict with your own bare hands.
OK

The only way I could see myself doing this is if I was the one that caught them in the act of killing/molesting children.

But if you saw an molestation on a child you wouldn't arrest the perp and call the police, you'd just kill 'em there and then. No need for law and order.........?
Well, you got that off your chest, I suppose.

 

[Enoch07]

That's a big fat 'No', then. You couldn't actually kill the restrained convict with your own bare hands.
OK

I wouldn't want to. I don't want to kill any creature if I don't have to.

But if you saw an molestation on a child you wouldn't arrest the perp and call the police, you'd just kill 'em there and then. No need for law and order.........?
Well, you got that off your chest, I suppose.

Possibly, being a victim of child molestation myself if I witnessed a child being harmed I would very likely lose control of my emotions. No guarantee, just a strong suspicion.

 

[Curious George]

Would you carry out the killings if your name was drawn to do so?

I wouldn't have an issue with it. But does that matter? The death penalty is not a question of whether you can implement a punishment set by society but rather whether we can, after due process, collectively decide to extinguish a life.

 

[oldbadger]

I wouldn't want to. I don't want to kill any creature if I don't have to.

That's the point.
A community does not have to kill a convict.
Life imprisonment shows the true nature of that community, imo.

Possibly, being a victim of child molestation myself if I witnessed a child being harmed I would very likely lose control of my emotions. No guarantee, just a strong suspicion.

I guess that a lot of convicts committed their murders and manslaughters having lost control of their emotions.