The Death Penalty

[Dreamer]

There are a lot of reasons for and against the death penalty.  I am curious what your strongest arguments are, either for or against.

Mine:
I am against the death penalty.

If we kill a person, they are forever silenced.  But let's say the person truly was guilty--and they may have even "deserved" the death penalty:  The crime they were convicted of is probably not their only heinous crime.  It may be a false hope or a silly belief, but ending their life forever removes the possibility that they will confess to other crimes.  This really bothers me because I think about all the people who have disappeared, all the cases which have not been solved.

There have been quite a number of death-row exonerations (over 140 since 1973).  This is really troubling on two levels:  one, an innocent person had their liberty taken away (and some falsely-convicted people have been murdered by the system that was supposedly getting retribution for a murder..) AND two, the real criminal is still out there--and no one is even looking for them!


So, what are your reasons?

[Poison Tree]

I'm ok with the death penalty for  certain crimes, in theory. However, they was we (USA) actually enforce it is flawed to the point that I think it would be best to scrap the whole thing.

Innocent people on death row and actually executed. Racial disparity. Higher cost than life in prison.

I've often heard people say that victims will get more closure if the criminal is executed. I don't think I would. If the guy gets life in prison, that is it; it is over and done. Give him the death penalty and decades and numerous appeals latter before they finally get around to killing him, but not without another media cycle, just like durring his appeals.

[Eric1958]

I am against it. Partly because getting the right person is too problematic, partly because it takes forever to actually resolve the appeals and fulfill the sentence.

If 24 hours after the murder the murderer was killed and it happened consistently, murder would become a very rare event. Reality bears no resemblance to this however. The way our system works now, life sentences are the way to go.

[mykcob4]

There are a lot of reasons for and against the death penalty.  I am curious what your strongest arguments are, either for or against.

Mine:
I am against the death penalty.

If we kill a person, they are forever silenced.  But let's say the person truly was guilty--and they may have even "deserved" the death penalty:  The crime they were convicted of is probably not their only heinous crime.  It may be a false hope or a silly belief, but ending their life forever removes the possibility that they will confess to other crimes.  This really bothers me because I think about all the people who have disappeared, all the cases which have not been solved.

There have been quite a number of death-row exonerations (over 140 since 1973).  This is really troubling on two levels:  one, an innocent person had their liberty taken away (and some falsely-convicted people have been murdered by the system that was supposedly getting retribution for a murder..) AND two, the real criminal is still out there--and no one is even looking for them!


So, what are your reasons?

Death penalty! So much is said about it, it defies logic. The fact that people institutional kill people is beyond belief. It describes a society.
Now my thoughts.
I am for the death penalty ONLY for acts of treason. The death penalty is not a deturant. It isn't justice. It's revenge pure and simple. Every death certific issued for a person executed states "murdered by the state." That is exactly what happens. The state murders a person. It is a fact that minorities and the poor are disporpotionaly the ones condemned to death and executed. Many people innocent of the crime they are condemned to death for occur. If only one innocent person executed is a strong enough agrument aganst the death penalty. However I reserve the act of treason and only the act of treason for the death penalty.

[Plu]

I am for the death penalty ONLY for acts of treason.

What makes treason so special, that your entire logical assessment of the death penalty goes out the window for it?

[surly74]

I'm against it because of the hypocritical situation it puts the state in. The state or government says that people have the right to life and then will take that right away when they see fit. If a private citizen takes another person's life away there is a punishment for it. They spend (or should) the rest of their life in prison. Taking their life away isn't justice, it's state sanctioned revenge. The state is saying "we're mad and all we can do is kill you right back".

It's not a deterrent, its not a solution.

[mykcob4]

I am for the death penalty ONLY for acts of treason.

What makes treason so special, that your entire logical assessment of the death penalty goes out the window for it?

Because treason is a special case. It isn't revenge, it's prevention. A person that commits treason  that is held in prison is still able to be part of an organization that can work against this nation. The main reason though is that is a constitutional mandate for the act of treason.

[Plu]

That doesn't make any sense... a person who is part of a criminal organisation while in prison is also still able to be part of that organisation and work against the same people he worked against to get him in prison in the first place. There is no reason why only someone commits treason would be able to do so.

And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.

[surly74]

And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.

cough*second amendment*cough.

[Plu]

Let's not bring that topic up again, ok?

[surly74]

Let's not bring that topic up again, ok?

I'm not interested in rehashing it but I consider the context valid.

[Jason78]

If 24 hours after the murder the murderer was killed and it happened consistently, murder would become a very rare event.

I disagree.  We'd just end up with a string of people getting murdered every 24 hours.

Every murder would spawn another one of these never ending chains until we are left with a major problem.

Who do we get to kill the last murderer?

[Dreamer]

Who do we get to kill the last murderer?

The last person to post in the last person wins thread.

[Solitary]

I'm against the death penalty because it is not justice but an injustice to the loved ones of the guilty. It is retribution for what the criminal did that thought he was right doing it too in many cases. The system is so screwed up the out come depends on how good or bad a lawyer and judges are. It is a system that is a abusive based on looks and personalities instead of the facts too many times. Eye witnesses are notorious for getting the facts wrong. I think there should be professional juries that are trained to find the truth of what happened and not just win like lawyers do. And lets not forget how money, politics, religion, bigotry, and prejudices decide the outcome in many cases.

Also, if a jury is squeamish about having someone killed they will let too many of the guilty go to do it again that are up for the death penalty. But there is no doubt that a child rapist and killer, or a rapist, or killer, can never hurt anyone again if they are dead. Too many really hard core criminals get out on bail or time served that do it again. The most insane of these is a multiple rapist of children that cut a girls arms off was let go again. The legal system should be to protect society not punish, and set up to make it work, not to make money for anyone, that can be outrageous at times. Just my opinion. But if a criminal harmed one of my family all bets are off---OJ would have had his skin pealed off and left to rot.  :shock:   Solitary

[stromboli]

Look at the Texas application of the death penalty and see the flaws therein. They have put innocent people to death. The death penalty should only be applied when there is absolute certainty of the crime- which there often isn't- and of such a heinous nature that there is more justification to destroy the perpetrator than to keep him alive.

Richard Allen Davis' murder of Polly Klaas comes to mind. This man was a career criminal who committed a crime so heinous that he is not only sitting on death row in California, but should have been executed by now.

I would say as above; death penalty only in rare exceptions and only in particularly heinous crimes.