The Death Penalty
 

This topic was partially inspired by the 'Tookie' thread. However, I would like to narrow the scope a bit on this question...

Do you believe that the death penalty is justifiable if people are ever wrongly condemned? In other words, let's say that for every 100 people sentenced to die, 99 of them are guilty of the crimes for which they are convicted, and one person is innocent. Does the 'good' done by the death penalty outweigh the occasional execution of an innocent person?

Regardless of what you may have seen in "The Fugitive" or "The Shawshank Redemption", those on Death Row are not there by accident.

Even those that have been cleared of a particular crime, are usually involved in others that they never answer for. A rapist is usually not caught, convicted and sent away for his first rape. He is usually not even caught for his first couple of rapes.

Tookie is a good example, as he co-founded the Crips, which makes him partially responsible for every single murder perpetrated by that gang, and also all the collateral damage that gang violence, murder, drugs and crime have brought to many innocent people. He could easily be tagged as the Twentieth Century's Typhoid Mary, bringing death to places it had no business being. He created a scourge that we are still fighting. He is beyond redemption and beyond rehabilitation.

Bring on the needle, it's much more humane than he deserves.

Quite the contrast to my sig, isn't it?

The death penalty is a crime. Human beings shouldn't be allowed to kill other human beings, even under law. The death penalty is uncivilized, something that should belong to the past.

The murderers should, of course, be punished. Going to jail for 20, 40 years or even for the rest of your life is a huge punishment. Life prison for a murderer is an acceptable and civilized punishment for me.

Greetings and Felicitations,

I am opposed to the death penalty for pretty much this reason. There are too many instances of people being put to death only to discover that they did not do it. Or a person is in prison for 20 years only to have someone confess that they did it.

I value human life very much. The death sentence doesn't act as a deterrent no matter how much those in favor say it does. If it did there wouldn't be any murders.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

Greetings and Felicitations,

This argument is strange. Does this mean those involved in the drug business should be put to death because someone dies from using, say, Vioxx? They released the drug knowing the side effects and intentionally chose profit over morality.

Your argument that he created the Crips is true. However, he did not create gangs. Gangs have been around for many a year. Birmingham, Alabama was rife with gang activity during the 1980's long before he had anything to do with it. The stories of the time were full of people insisting that America was doomed because the streets would be taken over by gangs.

The difference between you and I is that I believe that everyone can be redeemed. They might not be fit to be released into the general population but that does not mean they cannot be redeemed.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

I dont think the question should be if the death penalty is right or wrong. The question is this. Is it right to give up on a human life? Thats essentially what the death penalty or even a large-life sentence is doing. I believe all a prison cell does is give the criminal time to make up bigger and better excuses why his cause is just and how screwed he got by getting caught. More effort should be put into correction rather than just plain giving up. People have a remarkable ability to learn with the proper guidance.

Many people die who deserve life, and we can't give them that. We should not be so quick to judge who deserves death.

Put simply, if even one innocent person dies, the system is broken and should not be used. I don't feel it is needed.

Ben

I voted no, for precisely the reason listed in the poll.

That's just silly. You act as though putting someone in jail for 30 years and then releasing him after new evidence is found is infinitely better than executing him. It's not like everything wrong is undone when the life sentence wrongfully accused convict is released. He still lost 30 years of his life. What about the prison and court system in general? I mean, there have certainly been some people put in jail wrongfully. So, the system is, by your definition, broken at that level, too. So, should we get rid of jails?

It is. In the first instance the person still has at least part of their life left to them, and the possibility of some sort of compensation / restitution for the miscarriage of justice. In the second instance the person is, well, dead and buried. That's a pretty big difference from my point of view.

Jail sentences were not the subject of discussion.

Ben

The taking of a human life is so heinous that the perpetrator deserves to die.http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

So we kill the executioner too? Or is he supposed to commit suicide so we can break the chain?

Well, if you imprison someone for thirty years, and later find evidence that he was innocent, then you are able to at least do something to compensate him. That's not true for the death penalty. When you're dead, you're dead.

The main reason I oppose the death penalty, however, is that it costs too much. For me, it's not a matter of morality, but utility.

Bear in mind that a person can be kept in jail for for life (until they die) and after the death is when the information can surface that removes the guilt. Furthermore, even if you are released, I don't think there is really a way to compensate for someone's losing 30 years. Now, Ben said "if even one innocent person dies, the system is broken and should not be used." I assumed he applied that logic to all systems and not this system selectively. In that case, a person can die in prison if given a life sentence. Therefore, is the the penalty of life also broken?


"The taking of a human life is so heinous that the perpetrator deserves to die." - wrxsti

No, the illegal taking of a human life is heinous, if you want to use that word.

"Well, if you imprison someone for thirty years, and later find evidence that he was innocent, then you are able to at least do something to compensate him. That's not true for the death penalty. When you're dead, you're dead.

The main reason I oppose the death penalty, however, is that it costs too much. For me, it's not a matter of morality, but utility." - Anti-Utopian


Same can be said about life imprisonment. Should we completely do away with a punishment simply because it takes a long time to carry it out and because it can be "partially compensated" if given out incorrectly? As for the money, that can be corrected by limiting the appeals process and removing other expensive things. The death penalty should be made less expensive than a life sentence.

Why can other Western countries live without the death penalty? Why do we insist on having it?

Ben

Perhaps they hold it in order to have a punishment greater than the life sentence. Personally, I am for a cheaper death penalty. I would like to have one that doesn't cost more than a life sentence since that is simply absurd. The person needs to be housed and fed for a lesser amount of time if he is to be executed, so paying more for that lesser time is silly. The appealation processes need to be cut.

No, no, no. Nothing needs to be cut, except the death penalty.

Ben

And you still haven't explained why, other than "they don't do it, why should we?"