Death Penalty - yay or nay?

[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life.
[/quote]

Sure it does. What do you think is happening in Iraq?[/quote]

A ridiculous analogy and you know it.
[/quote]

It most certainly is not!

What do you think the government does when congress approves a war and the president launches it? Do you think they don't realize that we are authorizing our men and women to kill enemy men and women?[/quote]

That is hardly the same as executing someone who has been convicted of a crime, is it?[/quote]

Exactly my point. If the government can authorize the killing of Iraqi men and women who oppose "the american way of life" (or whatever we're fighting for in Iraq now), then they certainly have the right to execute a sadistic serial killer-rapist who actually deserves death.[/quote]

I'm not arguing about that right now in this thread, but at least I see you conceded the point.[/quote]

Now I'm really confused. What is your assertion, that the government shouldn't have the power to declare war?[/quote]

My assertion was that you asserting that killing people in war and executing criminals are the same thing was entirely incorrect.
 
It depends on if you think war should be entered into as a last resort to defend the country (in which it has little to do with executing prisoners), or if you're into Bush's 'they're bad so lets blow them up (as long as they have oil)' thing.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='spyhunterk19']All I have to say is that you should have put "Yea or Nay" in the poll.

Yay is incorrect, unless you are such a cruel and heartless bastard that you celebrate the death of a fellow human being.[/quote]

No, "yay" is the right word. If someone did something disgusting enough to warrant the death penalty for his/her actions I'll pass out party hats at the execution.[/quote]

Yea is the correct word, Yay is the bastardization of it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207

Yay is actually quite a horrible word to use in this instance, and the celebration of the death of another, no matter what their crime, is dispicable.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life.
[/quote]

Sure it does. What do you think is happening in Iraq?[/quote]

A ridiculous analogy and you know it.
[/quote]

It most certainly is not!

What do you think the government does when congress approves a war and the president launches it? Do you think they don't realize that we are authorizing our men and women to kill enemy men and women?[/quote]

That is hardly the same as executing someone who has been convicted of a crime, is it?[/quote]

Exactly my point. If the government can authorize the killing of Iraqi men and women who oppose "the american way of life" (or whatever we're fighting for in Iraq now), then they certainly have the right to execute a sadistic serial killer-rapist who actually deserves death.[/quote]

I'm not arguing about that right now in this thread, but at least I see you conceded the point.[/quote]

Now I'm really confused. What is your assertion, that the government shouldn't have the power to declare war?[/quote]

My assertion was that you asserting that killing people in war and executing criminals are the same thing was entirely incorrect.[/quote]

OK, that's true, and I never stated that the two were the same. My assertion is that the power of declaring war is more controversial then the power to institute the death penalty. However both of these are powers that I am willing to give to the government.
 
[quote name='spyhunterk19'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='spyhunterk19']All I have to say is that you should have put "Yea or Nay" in the poll.

Yay is incorrect, unless you are such a cruel and heartless bastard that you celebrate the death of a fellow human being.[/quote]

No, "yay" is the right word. If someone did something disgusting enough to warrant the death penalty for his/her actions I'll pass out party hats at the execution.[/quote]

Yea is the correct word, Yay is the bastardization of it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207

Yay is actually quite a horrible word to use in this instance, and the celebration of the death of another, no matter what their crime, is dispicable.[/quote]

That's easy for you to say. I'm sure you would feel quite different if someone raped and killed your wife/daughter or did some other equally horrible thing to ruin your life. You may think it's dispicable to celebrate their death but that's just your opinion. If it happened to me I'd be smiling with my party hat on and noisemaker in hand as I stared right into his eyes until his life was over. I'd even want an encore.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i think the death penalty is the easy way out. If someone killed someone I loved, if I didnt do anything crazy in the begining, I would want him to suffer, not for just one moment, but for the rest of his life.[/quote]

I feel the same way. Living in a small cell and knowing I will never get out would be much worse than getting sentanced to death.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']i think the death penalty is the easy way out. If someone killed someone I loved, if I didnt do anything crazy in the begining, I would want him to suffer, not for just one moment, but for the rest of his life.[/quote]

I feel the same way. Living in a small cell and knowing I will never get out would be much worse than getting sentanced to death.[/quote]

Fine, put him in your basement but don't expect me to pay for it.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']i think the death penalty is the easy way out. If someone killed someone I loved, if I didnt do anything crazy in the begining, I would want him to suffer, not for just one moment, but for the rest of his life.[/quote]

I feel the same way. Living in a small cell and knowing I will never get out would be much worse than getting sentanced to death.[/quote]

Fine, put him in your basement but don't expect me to pay for it.[/quote]

how much waste does the government go through every year? Prisons are no where near an unworthy cause. In fact, I wish more money was spent on prisons, to better house prisoners in a more secure enviroment.

Too many of them escape every year, when they should have been kept under better watch.I know I would feel safer if they did, as I live 10 minutes from a prison and drive by it everytime I go to school
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='spyhunterk19'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='spyhunterk19']All I have to say is that you should have put "Yea or Nay" in the poll.

Yay is incorrect, unless you are such a cruel and heartless bastard that you celebrate the death of a fellow human being.[/quote]

No, "yay" is the right word. If someone did something disgusting enough to warrant the death penalty for his/her actions I'll pass out party hats at the execution.[/quote]

Yea is the correct word, Yay is the bastardization of it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207

Yay is actually quite a horrible word to use in this instance, and the celebration of the death of another, no matter what their crime, is dispicable.[/quote]

That's easy for you to say. I'm sure you would feel quite different if someone raped and killed your wife/daughter or did some other equally horrible thing to ruin your life. You may think it's dispicable to celebrate their death but that's just your opinion. If it happened to me I'd be smiling with my party hat on and noisemaker in hand as I stared right into his eyes until his life was over. I'd even want an encore.[/quote]

Oh.. I see how it is...as soon as I prove it really was yea, that's no longer what we are talking about..

And I guarantee you will NEVER see a sane person passing out "Party Hats" at an execution, no matter how close the victim was to them.

"Party of morals" ...my ass it is. :roll:
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']i think the death penalty is the easy way out. If someone killed someone I loved, if I didnt do anything crazy in the begining, I would want him to suffer, not for just one moment, but for the rest of his life.[/quote]

I feel the same way. Living in a small cell and knowing I will never get out would be much worse than getting sentanced to death.[/quote]

Fine, put him in your basement but don't expect me to pay for it.[/quote]

how much waste does the government go through every year? Prisons are no where near an unworthy cause. In fact, I wish more money was spent on prisons, to better house prisoners in a more secure enviroment.

Too many of them escape every year, when they should have been kept under better watch.I know I would feel safer if they did, as I live 10 minutes from a prison and drive by it everytime I go to school[/quote]

How many of these convicted capital case criminals ever escape the grave.

Yes, there are gross misuses of government money everywhere. Yes, prisons should be more secure. However neither point makes me feel better about wasting my tax dollars on housing a criminal that will be living in prison for the rest of his life. If the crime was that horrific, just kill the guy/gal in the most humane way possible, it really is the best solution.
 
[quote name='camoor']How many of these convicted capital case criminals ever escape the grave.

Yes, there are gross misuses of government money everywhere. Yes, prisons should be more secure. However neither point makes me feel better about wasting my tax dollars on housing a criminal that will be living in prison for the rest of his life. If the crime was that horrific, just kill the guy/gal in the most humane way possible, it really is the best solution.[/quote]

Here's a good link that has arguments for both sides.

"Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more that keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. How can this be? It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers. Do we really have the resources to waste?"
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']i think the death penalty is the easy way out. If someone killed someone I loved, if I didnt do anything crazy in the begining, I would want him to suffer, not for just one moment, but for the rest of his life.[/quote]

I feel the same way. Living in a small cell and knowing I will never get out would be much worse than getting sentanced to death.[/quote]

Fine, put him in your basement but don't expect me to pay for it.[/quote]

how much waste does the government go through every year? Prisons are no where near an unworthy cause. In fact, I wish more money was spent on prisons, to better house prisoners in a more secure enviroment.

Too many of them escape every year, when they should have been kept under better watch.I know I would feel safer if they did, as I live 10 minutes from a prison and drive by it everytime I go to school[/quote]

How many of these convicted capital case criminals ever escape the grave.

Yes, there are gross misuses of government money everywhere. Yes, prisons should be more secure. However neither point makes me feel better about wasting my tax dollars on housing a criminal that will be living in prison for the rest of his life. If the crime was that horrific, just kill the guy/gal in the most humane way possible, it really is the best solution.[/quote]

so they should die in a humane way, where as the other person had to suffer and died in a cruel way?

I fail to see the logic
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']so they should die in a humane way, where as the other person had to suffer and died in a cruel way?

I fail to see the logic[/quote]

Killing them inhumanely only means you have sunk to their level. You have to set a better example.
 
I'm against teh death penalty on moral issues, but I understand and respect the alternate view.

I findn that in arguments on the death penalty it's too easy to find one particular case to support one side or the other. For example, I remember one discussion on C-span where a pro death-penalty advocate cited three cases where people were released and killed again.

And his argument was, if these people were sentenced to death, they wouldn't have been able to get out and kill again. But it's a fallicious argument because someone against the death penalty can say, well, they could have gotten life imprisonment without parole and they wouldn't have killed there either.

It ggoes on both sides too. A general argument used by those against the death penalty is that the death sentence is vengence, not closure. In other words, "Killing the criminal won't bring your daughter back." But everyone responds to trauma differently and sentencing a criminal to death may be the closest thing to closure that some victims will ever get.

Again, I'm personally against the death penalty on moral and practical grounds. But I understand and respect that some people want to enforce the ultimate punishment on a criminal depending on the crime. That it's the ultimate deterrent. And that's a perfectly reasonable position because it's ultimately a moral one. Just one I disagree with.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I'm against teh death penalty on moral issues, but I understand and respect the alternate view.

I findn that in arguments on the death penalty it's too easy to find one particular case to support one side or the other. For example, I remember one discussion on C-span where a pro death-penalty advocate cited three cases where people were released and killed again.

And his argument was, if these people were sentenced to death, they wouldn't have been able to get out and kill again. But it's a fallicious argument because someone against the death penalty can say, well, they could have gotten life imprisonment without parole and they wouldn't have killed there either.

It ggoes on both sides too. A general argument used by those against the death penalty is that the death sentence is vengence, not closure. In other words, "Killing the criminal won't bring your daughter back." But everyone responds to trauma differently and sentencing a criminal to death may be the closest thing to closure that some victims will ever get.

Again, I'm personally against the death penalty on moral and practical grounds. But I understand and respect that some people want to enforce the ultimate punishment on a criminal depending on the crime. That it's the ultimate deterrent. And that's a perfectly reasonable position because it's ultimately a moral one. Just one I disagree with.[/quote]

A very reasonable post, and I think this highlights the crux of the morality issue. It really comes down to whether you think killing another human being can be justified as serving a worthwhile, moral purpose.

However from the perspective of eliminating future crimes I want to point out that life without parole can be overturned or the prisoner can escape, but unless you're down with Hades you aren't coming back from the grave.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='camoor']How many of these convicted capital case criminals ever escape the grave.

Yes, there are gross misuses of government money everywhere. Yes, prisons should be more secure. However neither point makes me feel better about wasting my tax dollars on housing a criminal that will be living in prison for the rest of his life. If the crime was that horrific, just kill the guy/gal in the most humane way possible, it really is the best solution.[/quote]

Here's a good link that has arguments for both sides.

"Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more that keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. How can this be? It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers. Do we really have the resources to waste?"[/quote]

That's very well put together, a good read for anyone who's not well-versed on the subject and the arguments surrounding it.
 
Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more that keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. How can this be? It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out.
Click to expand...

Here's an idea: Cut out useless "endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling" with good legislation.

Just because it's not yet efficient to charge someone with a capital crime doesn't mean we all give up and go home.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CaseyRyback']so they should die in a humane way, where as the other person had to suffer and died in a cruel way?

I fail to see the logic[/quote]

Killing them inhumanely only means you have sunk to their level. You have to set a better example.[/quote]

I really do not like that argument (I understand why people use it though). It can be used in so many ways that I think it is the ultimate cop out. I bet other civilized nations around the world do not think we are setting a good exampl.

if you are going to start killing people, do it downtown in front of everyone and show people what it is like to see someone die. Don't sit there and hide it, thinking it makes things better. If you want to make it a crime and make it the ultimate punishment, take their ass and hang them on the front steps of the court house).

With all that said, I am totally aganist the death penalty. I just feel if you are going to use it, do it right.
 
[quote name='spyhunterk19'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='spyhunterk19'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='spyhunterk19']All I have to say is that you should have put "Yea or Nay" in the poll.

Yay is incorrect, unless you are such a cruel and heartless bastard that you celebrate the death of a fellow human being.[/quote]

No, "yay" is the right word. If someone did something disgusting enough to warrant the death penalty for his/her actions I'll pass out party hats at the execution.[/quote]

Yea is the correct word, Yay is the bastardization of it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207

Yay is actually quite a horrible word to use in this instance, and the celebration of the death of another, no matter what their crime, is dispicable.[/quote]

That's easy for you to say. I'm sure you would feel quite different if someone raped and killed your wife/daughter or did some other equally horrible thing to ruin your life. You may think it's dispicable to celebrate their death but that's just your opinion. If it happened to me I'd be smiling with my party hat on and noisemaker in hand as I stared right into his eyes until his life was over. I'd even want an encore.[/quote]

Oh.. I see how it is...as soon as I prove it really was yea, that's no longer what we are talking about..

And I guarantee you will NEVER see a sane person passing out "Party Hats" at an execution, no matter how close the victim was to them.

"Party of morals" ...my ass it is. :roll:[/quote]

You didn't prove anything. It can be "yay" (you said it yourself), "yea" or "aye" and probably a host of other things. So what?

Also, I don't think anyone would literally pass out anything at an execution (duh) but I'll bet that it brings closure to the whole ordeal to a lot of victim's families to watch their killer die for his crime. I, for one, would would want the closure that the death penalty brings.
 
I believe that some crimes against humanity do warrant the death penalty; however, I also know that placing someone on death row costs taxpayers significantly more money than simply incarcerating that same inmate for the rest of his/her life (due to various legal fees, appeals, court costs, etc.).

If we had all the money in the world, that would be one thing, but with a soaring budget deficit, Social Secuity about to collapse, etc., I just can't financially justify the death penalty, especially when I know that incarcerating someone for the rest of their life is probably more painful to them than simply being put to death. Let them rot in prison for the rest of their lives (and save taxpayers' money at the same time).
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3']I believe that some crimes against humanity do warrant the death penalty; however, I also know that placing someone on death row costs taxpayers significantly more money than simply incarcerating that same inmate for the rest of his/her life (due to various legal fees, appeals, court costs, etc.).

If we had all the money in the world, that would be one thing, but with a soaring budget deficit, Social Secuity about to collapse, etc., I just can't financially justify the death penalty, especially when I know that incarcerating someone for the rest of their life is probably more painful to them than simply being put to death. Let them rot in prison for the rest of their lives (and save taxpayers' money at the same time).[/quote]

Why do people want to keep these horrific monsters alive? Check out the news story below, it gets more ridiculous each day...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/death.row.syndrome.ap/index.html
 
I'm for it, i think it should be an eye for an eye though. Thinking about it some dude getting raped in prison every day of his life seems justifiable is some cases.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar'] But I understand and respect that some people want to enforce the ultimate punishment on a criminal depending on the crime. [/quote]

I don't consider death the ultimate punishment, personally. Many people would rather die than live live x (x being whatever would be horrible for them). Once you're dead, it's all over. I'd rather be dead than live my entire life in prison.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='MaxBiaggi3']I believe that some crimes against humanity do warrant the death penalty; however, I also know that placing someone on death row costs taxpayers significantly more money than simply incarcerating that same inmate for the rest of his/her life (due to various legal fees, appeals, court costs, etc.).

If we had all the money in the world, that would be one thing, but with a soaring budget deficit, Social Secuity about to collapse, etc., I just can't financially justify the death penalty, especially when I know that incarcerating someone for the rest of their life is probably more painful to them than simply being put to death. Let them rot in prison for the rest of their lives (and save taxpayers' money at the same time).[/quote]

Why do people want to keep these horrific monsters alive? Check out the news story below, it gets more ridiculous each day...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/death.row.syndrome.ap/index.html[/quote]

But the death penalty is irreversible, and the legal system should not be run on emotion. Too often innocent people will be put to death in the process. That's the problem with jury by peers, it may be the best we have, but it has a hell of a lot of problems itself.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='MaxBiaggi3']I believe that some crimes against humanity do warrant the death penalty; however, I also know that placing someone on death row costs taxpayers significantly more money than simply incarcerating that same inmate for the rest of his/her life (due to various legal fees, appeals, court costs, etc.).

If we had all the money in the world, that would be one thing, but with a soaring budget deficit, Social Secuity about to collapse, etc., I just can't financially justify the death penalty, especially when I know that incarcerating someone for the rest of their life is probably more painful to them than simply being put to death. Let them rot in prison for the rest of their lives (and save taxpayers' money at the same time).[/quote]

Why do people want to keep these horrific monsters alive? Check out the news story below, it gets more ridiculous each day...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/death.row.syndrome.ap/index.html[/quote]

But the death penalty is irreversible, and the legal system should not be run on emotion. Too often innocent people will be put to death in the process. That's the problem with jury by peers, it may be the best we have, but it has a hell of a lot of problems itself.[/quote]

The point is that life imprisionment is a worse punishment then death. Therefore you are giving everyone convicted of a capital crime (including the .0000001% that are innocent) a worse punishment, promoting suffering, and costing the taxpayers more money, just because it's possible that a handful of the cases may be overturned in the future.
 
[quote name='camoor']The point is that life imprisionment is a worse punishment then death. Therefore you are giving everyone convicted of a capital crime (including the .0000001% that are innocent) a worse punishment, promoting suffering, and costing the taxpayers more money, just because it's possible that a handful of the cases may be overturned in the future.[/quote]

It has to be better than killing the occasional innocent person convicted of a capital crime. I do agree that a life sentence is worse than death and I have no problem handing out that sentence to those who deserve it. And if someone inoocent receives a life sentence there is a chance they can be released. As it is now, life sentences are cheaper than the death penalty. If you take away the mandatory appeals and legal wranglings to save money, then you increase the chance of executing an innocent person.
 
The study of 4,578 appeals between 1973 and 1995 showed that most cases "are so seriously flawed that they have to be done over again".

Report author Professor James Liebman said: "It's not one case, it's thousands of cases. It's not one state, it's almost all of the states.

"You're creating a very high risk that some errors are going to get through the process."

Prof Liebman says the biggest problem is lazy and incompetent defence lawyers.

In one controversial case, death row inmate Calvin Burdine is fighting to overturn his 1983 conviction on the grounds that his court-appointed lawyer slept through much of his two-day trial.
Click to expand...
link

*Of the 5,796 people under sentence of death between 1977 and
1997, 7.5% were executed, 2.7% died by causes other than
execution, and 32.2% received other dispositions.......

The prisoners executed
during 1997 had been under sentence of death an average of 11
years and 1 month, 8 months more than that for inmates executed
in 1996.
Click to expand...
link

Almost all people on death row could not afford to hire an attorney. The quality of legal representation is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime.

Race often plays a role in determining a capital sentence. Over 80% of capital cases involve white victims, even though nationally, only 50% of murder victims are white
Click to expand...
link

"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.

United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990..........

PERSONS EXECUTED FOR INTERRACIAL MURDERS IN THE U.S. SINCE 1976
White Defendant / Black Victim (12)

Black Defendant / White Victim (192) "
Click to expand...
link

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, a group critical of the sanction, 117 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 30 years, including 21 in Florida and 18 in Illinois. In 2003, outgoing Illinois Gov. George H. Ryan commuted the sentences of every death row inmate, citing what he described as a concern about potential errors.
Click to expand...
link

Also, compared to the 117 exonerations, there have been 948 executed in the past 28 yearslink. With all the cases that are caught, it isn't hard to believe more than a few slip through, though either way it's more than .0000000001%. Also, most death penalty statistics seem to come from biased sources, so when I used a biased source I tried to at least get a reputable one.
 
Today we have DNA testing and improved technology across the board. It's not valid to take data from 20, 30, 40 years back and make the case that a similar degree of innocents are going to get convicted today.
 
[quote name='camoor']Today we have DNA testing and improved technology across the board. It's not valid to take data from 20, 30, 40 years back and make the case that a similar degree of innocents are going to get convicted today.[/quote]

I took the last 30 years, that includes 30 years ago and it includes yesterday. We also don't always give DNA tests when requested by people on death row, and people do go to their death still requesting them. You need to grant dna tests to everyone, regardless of the evidence against them, which would be extremely costly. Also, I pointed to the increased tendency to use it on some members of society and not others. But back to DNA:

Thirteen states have appointed independent commissions to study their death-penalty statutes in recent years. Their recommendations suggest that DNA evidence is not a panacea for what lands innocents on death row.

One problem is that only a fraction of homicides involves DNA evidence. Murders ranging from a drive-by shooting to the Oklahoma City bombing leave no DNA at the crime scene.

"We assume DNA evidence is available," says William Alexa, a former Indiana state senator and current judge who served on Indiana's committee. "That's not always the case."

Where DNA evidence is part of a case, forensic scientists may still mishandle it, as scandals in Oklahoma and the FBI crime lab have proved. "There is a public perception that DNA is the cure-all for these kind of mistakes," says Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington. "DNA is not the whole answer."

There are a variety of reasons the wrong person may be convicted, such as incorrect eyewitness identifications and false confessions, the Illinois panel found.
Click to expand...

link
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Of course we've never had innocent people on Death Row. :roll:[/quote]

Hey, MrBE! It seems that we probably partially agree on this! Wow!


I used to be a strong advocate of the death penalty, but I have slowly come to somewhere in the middle recently. There are just as many good reasons to be against it as there are to be for it. I'm not sure where I will end up at, ultimately.

EDIT: And you're correct in your most recent post that death row inmates cost more money than anyone else. To top it off, most of them are never executed.
 
The death penalty is unconstitutional and costs the government a lot of money in the long run because of all the law suits and appeals that go with every court case. it's denying us our first amend. rights, anyway... life liberty and freedom
 
[quote name='havok2164']The death penalty is unconstitutional and costs the government a lot of money in the long run because of all the law suits and appeals that go with every court case. it's denying us our first amend. rights, anyway... life liberty and freedom[/quote]

That's a pretty terrible argument against the death penalty. First off, you seem to be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. Secondly, its 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness', and again, its in the Declaration, not the Constitution. The first amendment deals with freedom of speech, the press, assembly and religion - not a whole lot in there about the death penalty, unless you want to make the rather strange argument that the death penalty interferes with freedom of speech.

Even if we accept your incorrect information, though, its still a bad argument: 'liberty' is in there, after all. Does that mean that sending people to jail is unconstitutional? Its hard to pursue happiness in an 8x10 cement-block room, after all. Should all criminals be set free?

There's a lot of good reasons to be against the death penalty: I'd recommend looking up some of them instead of making up your own. :twisted:
 
[quote name='havok2164']The death penalty is unconstitutional and costs the government a lot of money in the long run because of all the law suits and appeals that go with every court case. it's denying us our first amend. rights, anyway... life liberty and freedom[/quote]

That's an innaccurate description. If someone does a crime, their freedoms get taken away (or rather they forfeit them by breaking the law) and they go to prison. If some broken law is so severe that death could be considered for a possiblt penalty, they have given that right up much the same way. I'm not arguing for capital punishment here, but rether, your description is greatly flawed.
 
It just seems like alot of ppl here are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

1. Most people on this board agree that life imprisonment is crueler then death.

2. Anti-death penalty ppl have no problem with convicted criminals spending their life in prison.

3. Yet anti-death penalty people don't like the death penalty because innocent people could be convicted and sent to their death. This means that innocent people who are convicted will suffer the crueler punishment of life imprisonment.

Point 3 just doesn't make any sense to me (and I believe Point 2 qualifies as being cruel and unusual).
 
[quote name='camoor']

1. Life imprisonment is crueler then death.
[/quote]

That's just an opinion (but I do agree with it).
 
[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='camoor']

1. Life imprisonment is crueler then death.
[/quote]

That's just an opinion (but I do agree with it).[/quote]

Good point
 
[quote name='camoor']It just seems like alot of ppl here are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

1. Most people on this board agree that life imprisonment is crueler then death.

2. Anti-death penalty ppl have no problem with convicted criminals spending their life in prison.

3. Yet anti-death penalty people don't like the death penalty because innocent people could be convicted and sent to their death. This means that innocent people who are convicted will suffer the crueler punishment of life imprisonment.

Point 3 just doesn't make any sense to me (and I believe Point 2 qualifies as being cruel and unusual).[/quote]

All very true. But one arguement could be that someone wrongly imprisoned could be set free when the mistake was proven. You kill someone, all you can do is say, "Oops."
 
[quote name='camoor']It just seems like alot of ppl here are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

1. Most people on this board agree that life imprisonment is crueler then death.

2. Anti-death penalty ppl have no problem with convicted criminals spending their life in prison.

3. Yet anti-death penalty people don't like the death penalty because innocent people could be convicted and sent to their death. This means that innocent people who are convicted will suffer the crueler punishment of life imprisonment.

Point 3 just doesn't make any sense to me (and I believe Point 2 qualifies as being cruel and unusual).[/quote]

Well, I used evidence to explain why I opposed it. Though, on the other hand, I do believe in a persons right to die. If they ever just gave up hope, since remember the appeals are the main reason they spend so long in jail, they should have the legal right to get help in ending their own life. Though it would be very tragic, considering that shouldn't have been jailed in the first place.

You would have to show evidence where innocent people in jail preferred to be killed, instead of remaining in jail with the hope of being exonerated, something which you haven't done.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor']It just seems like alot of ppl here are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

1. Most people on this board agree that life imprisonment is crueler then death.

2. Anti-death penalty ppl have no problem with convicted criminals spending their life in prison.

3. Yet anti-death penalty people don't like the death penalty because innocent people could be convicted and sent to their death. This means that innocent people who are convicted will suffer the crueler punishment of life imprisonment.

Point 3 just doesn't make any sense to me (and I believe Point 2 qualifies as being cruel and unusual).[/quote]

Well, I used evidence to explain why I opposed it. Though, on the other hand, I do believe in a persons right to die. If they ever just gave up hope, since remember the appeals are the main reason they spend so long in jail, they should have the legal right to get help in ending their own life. Though it would be very tragic, considering that shouldn't have been jailed in the first place.

You would have to show evidence where innocent people in jail preferred to be killed, instead of remaining in jail with the hope of being exonerated, something which you haven't done.[/quote]

While this article describes the plight of a (most probably) guilty man, I see no reason why an innocent man would not feel the same way if he was isolated in a room, waiting for death for years on end.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/death.row.syndrome.ap/index.html
 
I'm against the principle of allowing the government to deprive an individual of life. Although that's not to say I would condemn some one for murdering their wife's killer, or something of that nature. I just don't want the government doing it. I believe as long as a murder has been given his due process, he should be shipped to an undisclosed location never to have outside contact with the civilized world. Not technically dead, but dead for all bureaucratic purposes.

They should be made to work for their own survival and sustinence in seclusion. Just like Escape From NY. Great idea, IMO. Plus they'd be availible for 'dirty dozen' type spy missions when the CIA needed some patsies for suicide rescue operations. We could take over Canada and barb wire off the great white north just for this purpose.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend'][quote name='camoor']It just seems like alot of ppl here are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

1. Most people on this board agree that life imprisonment is crueler then death.

2. Anti-death penalty ppl have no problem with convicted criminals spending their life in prison.

3. Yet anti-death penalty people don't like the death penalty because innocent people could be convicted and sent to their death. This means that innocent people who are convicted will suffer the crueler punishment of life imprisonment.

Point 3 just doesn't make any sense to me (and I believe Point 2 qualifies as being cruel and unusual).[/quote]

All very true. But one arguement could be that someone wrongly imprisoned could be set free when the mistake was proven. You kill someone, all you can do is say, "Oops."[/quote]

Exactly, my friend. You can't really make any amends at all once you've killed someone, obviously. At least the people who were wrongly imprisoned will have the rest of their lives to live out when the truth becomes known.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor']It just seems like alot of ppl here are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

1. Most people on this board agree that life imprisonment is crueler then death.

2. Anti-death penalty ppl have no problem with convicted criminals spending their life in prison.

3. Yet anti-death penalty people don't like the death penalty because innocent people could be convicted and sent to their death. This means that innocent people who are convicted will suffer the crueler punishment of life imprisonment.

Point 3 just doesn't make any sense to me (and I believe Point 2 qualifies as being cruel and unusual).[/quote]

Well, I used evidence to explain why I opposed it. Though, on the other hand, I do believe in a persons right to die. If they ever just gave up hope, since remember the appeals are the main reason they spend so long in jail, they should have the legal right to get help in ending their own life. Though it would be very tragic, considering that shouldn't have been jailed in the first place.

You would have to show evidence where innocent people in jail preferred to be killed, instead of remaining in jail with the hope of being exonerated, something which you haven't done.[/quote]

While this article describes the plight of a (most probably) guilty man, I see no reason why an innocent man would not feel the same way if he was isolated in a room, waiting for death for years on end.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/death.row.syndrome.ap/index.html[/quote]

Fine then, extend the right to die to all citizens and let them decide if there time in jail has gotten too severe. Not everyone prefers to die, and since there is a sizeable minority of people who are innocent, it should be up to them if they want to die or not. It's ridiculous to argue for the death penalty because a person may be innocent and life in jail may be worse. It's their life, I'm not going to be a supporter of sending a possibly innocent man to death, unwillingly, because I decided life in prison was worse, even though he clearly disagrees. For me I believe life in prison is worse, I can't speak for everyone, as I know there are some (in prison) who don't agree. Also, I don't agree punishment should be based on emotion (as you seemed to suggest in a following post).
 
I wouldn't think that it would be that hard to kill yourself in prison anyway - just attack an armed guard - bang, you're dead. I've never tried it, though, so I can't say for sure :)
 
[quote name='Drocket']I wouldn't think that it would be that hard to kill yourself in prison anyway - just attack an armed guard - bang, you're dead. I've never tried it, though, so I can't say for sure :)[/quote]

Unfortunately, I don't think it's that easy (in a good prison system). I know people who work as guards. They'll usually just restrain you, even if their own life is at risk. But in Nevada (my home state) for example, some of the prisons will just kill you and make up excuses. So, I guess it all depends on where you're sent. :wink:
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor']It just seems like alot of ppl here are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

1. Most people on this board agree that life imprisonment is crueler then death.

2. Anti-death penalty ppl have no problem with convicted criminals spending their life in prison.

3. Yet anti-death penalty people don't like the death penalty because innocent people could be convicted and sent to their death. This means that innocent people who are convicted will suffer the crueler punishment of life imprisonment.

Point 3 just doesn't make any sense to me (and I believe Point 2 qualifies as being cruel and unusual).[/quote]

Well, I used evidence to explain why I opposed it. Though, on the other hand, I do believe in a persons right to die. If they ever just gave up hope, since remember the appeals are the main reason they spend so long in jail, they should have the legal right to get help in ending their own life. Though it would be very tragic, considering that shouldn't have been jailed in the first place.

You would have to show evidence where innocent people in jail preferred to be killed, instead of remaining in jail with the hope of being exonerated, something which you haven't done.[/quote]

While this article describes the plight of a (most probably) guilty man, I see no reason why an innocent man would not feel the same way if he was isolated in a room, waiting for death for years on end.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/death.row.syndrome.ap/index.html[/quote]

Fine then, extend the right to die to all citizens and let them decide if there time in jail has gotten too severe. Not everyone prefers to die, and since there is a sizeable minority of people who are innocent, it should be up to them if they want to die or not. It's ridiculous to argue for the death penalty because a person may be innocent and life in jail may be worse. It's their life, I'm not going to be a supporter of sending a possibly innocent man to death, unwillingly, because I decided life in prison was worse, even though he clearly disagrees. For me I believe life in prison is worse, I can't speak for everyone, as I know there are some (in prison) who don't agree. Also, I don't agree punishment should be based on emotion (as you seemed to suggest in a following post).[/quote]

Take emotion out of it. Would you still want those two "people" walking around your neighboorhood in 30 years, assuming you are a thoroughly rational person?
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor']It just seems like alot of ppl here are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

1. Most people on this board agree that life imprisonment is crueler then death.

2. Anti-death penalty ppl have no problem with convicted criminals spending their life in prison.

3. Yet anti-death penalty people don't like the death penalty because innocent people could be convicted and sent to their death. This means that innocent people who are convicted will suffer the crueler punishment of life imprisonment.

Point 3 just doesn't make any sense to me (and I believe Point 2 qualifies as being cruel and unusual).[/quote]

Well, I used evidence to explain why I opposed it. Though, on the other hand, I do believe in a persons right to die. If they ever just gave up hope, since remember the appeals are the main reason they spend so long in jail, they should have the legal right to get help in ending their own life. Though it would be very tragic, considering that shouldn't have been jailed in the first place.

You would have to show evidence where innocent people in jail preferred to be killed, instead of remaining in jail with the hope of being exonerated, something which you haven't done.[/quote]

While this article describes the plight of a (most probably) guilty man, I see no reason why an innocent man would not feel the same way if he was isolated in a room, waiting for death for years on end.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/death.row.syndrome.ap/index.html[/quote]

Fine then, extend the right to die to all citizens and let them decide if there time in jail has gotten too severe. Not everyone prefers to die, and since there is a sizeable minority of people who are innocent, it should be up to them if they want to die or not. It's ridiculous to argue for the death penalty because a person may be innocent and life in jail may be worse. It's their life, I'm not going to be a supporter of sending a possibly innocent man to death, unwillingly, because I decided life in prison was worse, even though he clearly disagrees. For me I believe life in prison is worse, I can't speak for everyone, as I know there are some (in prison) who don't agree. Also, I don't agree punishment should be based on emotion (as you seemed to suggest in a following post).[/quote]

Take emotion out of it. Would you still want those two "people" walking around your neighboorhood in 30 years, assuming you are a thoroughly rational person?[/quote]

I would not consider them dangerous to the general population. Upon release (assuming they were released), they should not be allowed to possess any children or animals, they should not be in control of any living thing. But, they do not appear to be dangerous to those not under their control. The children were given to them, they did not kidnap them.
 
Point three does make sense, but don't the innocents that recieve life imprisonment have a chance at parole? I mean, if you get the death penalty... well, I don't know how much you can do about that, but life in prison (where I live, IA) doesn't mean life in prison. It means they sentence you for about 150 years, then the most influential polititians slowly shorten it up... first by 20 years, then by 30 years... etc.

I realize that getting a sentence for life and a sentence for about 100+ years are very different things, but... yeah. If it makes sense at all. :D

Havok2164, have you ever taken a history course in your life? ...?
 
You can be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in most, if not all, States.

Nice username BTW. Interesting you chose the politics forum to write your post first on a gaming website. We're getting a more diverse crowd every day here at CAG !
 
[quote name='camoor']1. Most people on this board agree that life imprisonment is crueler then death.[/quote]

I wouldn't say the life in prison is "crueler" than the death penalty. Harsher, yes, but not cruel. I think if you commit a heinous crime, the government has the obligation to remove you from free society where you could harm someone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top