The death penalty

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by manrey, Aug 13, 2004.

  1. manrey Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    Does the death penalty actually deter people from comitting crimes that call for it as a punishment? AND, would the executor not be a murdurer him/herself? What makes that different from gunning someone down on the streets? I can't decide if I am for the death penalty, or against it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. fireguy_31 mors ante servitium Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    667
    Then consider this: Innocent people have been executed for crimes they did not commit becuase the justice system is fallible.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. manrey Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    I agree with you there, although the number of wrongful executions is low because of the painfully long amout of time one spends on death row, filing appeal after appeal... Also consider recidivism. Buddy kills 20 people, goes to jail for 20 years (concurrent sentencing here in Canada), comes out... how can one be sure he won't kill again?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Gee manrey, what a wonderful way of looking at it..


    Using that logic, we should kill anyone who is in a high stress job because "how can one be sure" they won't kill?

    He who is without sin, let him throw the first stone.
     
  8. manrey Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    Did I ever say that stress caused one to kill?
     
  9. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    No.

    Using your premise that because somebody kills 20 people we can't "be sure" he won't kill again, then we can't be sure that someone who is stressed out won't end up killing 20 people either so why not kill them too, using your logic?
     
  10. manrey Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    Stress is not always the cause... I mean, you're stressing me out, but I don't want to kill you. Some say people are born killers, some say it is just something that develops. I'm just arguing both sides of the death penalty.
     
  11. fireguy_31 mors ante servitium Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    667
    Sure, we can consider it/them [recidivists]. But what does this have to do with your question:
    Which is what my post responded to. YES, executioners are murderers.
     
  12. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Messages:
    624
    Criminals who commit violent crimes have a recidivism rate of 80%+ according to the DoJ book for this year. Not only that, but they commit crimes against others while incarcerated as well. So, saying that it's not a significant statistic is illogical in itself.

    fireguy:

    Cite one case since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 where there is irrefutable proof that an innocent man was put to death.

    Please don't argue the law of probability. I understand that, but I do think that the lengthy trials and appeals process has exhonerated men who might be innocent because that is the purpose of the process. So far, it seem that the system is working since I can think of only one possible case of an innocent man being put to death... except that there was no proof to his innocence, just a technicality in the case.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the problems with the death penalty right now, is that it's racist. Black men and hispanic men are eight times more likely than white males to get the death penalty in those cases.

    Another issue at the moment is the inhumane method of lethal injection. Apparently, in 38 of the 39 states that have the death penalty, a drug is used that is outlawed for use in the practice of euthanising animals. The drug paralyzes but does not remove pain and the inmate is unable to move or scream out in pain. The method used by vets to put animals to sleep is a much more humane method.

    There are a lot of problems with the death penalty that need to be corrected. I still think it's a good method of protecting the public from criminal sociopaths that will create more victims, both in prison and on the outside if released.
     
  13. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Sacco and Vanzetti got the long end of the stick..

    Does this come from one who says "please don't argue the law of probability"? Hmm..

    I thought violence doesn't solve anything? Why kill them if you disapprove of them killing? Seems like you are getting tied up in your thinking.

    Will you judge whether or not these are fit to live?

    He who is without sin, let him throw the first stone.
    Does this come from one who says "please don't argue the law of probability"? Hmm..
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Here's one, the first one in the search list. There are many many more.



    It's amazing when one considers that the US is in the same league in the death penalty, along with Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Countries known for human rights abuses. Now there are countries you would want to be aligned with in the treatment of prisoners. After all, they have such brilliant human rights records.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And the US can hold its head high and proud. They even kill juveniles under 18, as well as mentally handicapped and disabled people as well.
     
  15. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Messages:
    624
    75 people, who the system did work for. 75 people were released from death row because of the lengthy and careful appeals process. None of those 75 people was put to death. Interesting though that you cite that only 1 percent of those released are found innocent. One percent actually didn't commit the crime. The rest were commuted to life in prison. So it's not that these people didn't commit their crimes, just that we felt they shouldn't die for their crimes.


    And, after he was put to death they did go through the evidence and could not prove that the new evidence provided would prove his innocence. They denied his appeal because the case was handled by all parties correctly. The evidence was presented in the form of sworn affidavits from several people, including a former cell-mate and a former attorney of Raúl Herrera, who both said that Raúl had told them that he had carried out the killings. In February 1992, Raúl Herrera's son, Raúl Jr, also signed an affidavit stating that he had been in the car when the killings had taken place and had witnesses his father kill the officers. Raúl Sr. had already been put to death, so what did they have to lose pinning the crime on him to save a family member. The cell-mate had later recanted his story and refused testimony. What your quoted 'World Socialists' group neglected to tell you was the facts.

    Where did I say that? I disapprove of people killing innocent victims. I do not disapprove of the state putting to death, people who have committed great crimes against humanity.

    If I was called upon to do so. I would sit on a jury, yes. It is not my job to judge from where I sit. That is the job of the justice system, and a jury of 12 people committed to serving justice.

    I'm not saying that there aren't problems with the system, but were you to ask me if killing one innocent out of one hundred to keep that hundred from creating more victims, and harming society... then my answer would be yes.
     
  16. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    A way to look at this could include this: In most DP states and probably all DP states it is a DP crime to kill a policeman. I know stories of some criminals who, when robbing a bank or fleeing police have not attempted to kill the policeman doing his job simply because a jury was very likely to come back with the DP in the sentencing portion of their trials. While the crime of robbery or fleeing did not. So yes, the DP does deter people from committing crimes of murder sometimes I would have to say. Then again we have plenty of examples that no matter what the laws are, "sociopaths" just will keep on killing (some names below).

    Murder or justifiable homicide? I would say carrying out a legal sentance of death is under justifiable homicide in the least.

    Gunning someone down in the street may have the potential to fall under justifiable homicide also, depending on what started the shooting to begin with. You would not argue that you dont have a right to protect yourself from your own death, no matter if it did result in the death of the other person, would you?

    I dont think being for /against the DP has to be an all or nothing position. I do not want to see innocent persons sentenced to death. I dont agree with executing those who have IQs that mean they are not fully capable of making sound choices in general, things let alone understanding their own actions/controlling the outcome when murder is involved. But I think there are crimes that do present a good DP ending. Ted Bundy, John Gacy for example. I think Charlie Manson deserves to die for his crimes too. Dahmer lived in a state without a DP but would have been one of those I could have easily voted for the DP for if I had the chance.

    Same league? How so? Just for having a death penalty? <BR>&nbsp;
     
  17. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Messages:
    624
    On June 20, 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia: The U.S. Supreme Court declared that the execution of persons with mental retardation was unconstitutional. The landmark ruling ended the execution of those with mental retardation. By Federal Standards that would mean an IQ lower than 75, but it varies from state to state, Arkansas being the lowest at 65.

    In the case, the Court held that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel unusual punishment to execute death row inmates with mental retardation.

    Prior to Atkins v. Virginia, eighteen states plus the federal government did not allow the execution of those with mental retardation: AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, MD, MO, NE, NM, NY*, NC, SD, TN, WA, and U.S.

    Just to clear that up.

    I also don't believe in executing people who commit crimes under the age of 18. I think they are too young for their conscience to be fully developed, and they do not have enough experience in the world for us to unequivically say that they can not be rehabilitated.
     
  18. robtex Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    582
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

    read the section on death penalty as crimminal deterent ----eye opener

    http://www.derechos.org/dp/


    http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/wrong.html
    database of wrongful exectutions

    http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/
    wrongful sentencings

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/03/chicops.html
    story about the chicago police crew that used torture to get murder confessions.

    The legal system in the United States is complicated. You have police departments that are pressured to get murders off the streets, district attorneys with a win loss ratio that can affect their carreers, defense attorney's whom are appointed by the state who get a flat fee regardless of prefromance. These attorny's in addition to their state paid legal fees have paying clients who are more important to them monetarily speaking.

    Add to that a percentage of crimminal convictions are made based soley on evidence left at the crime scene. No witness what so ever. Also, a normal and very unethical tatic is to get the "jailhouse snich" a person who says while the defendant was in jail he confessed to the crime.

    Don't get me wrong, I think that most people on death row are guilty as charged but as a crimminal defense attorney pointed out to me once with the system being as intricate as it is there are going to be mistakes and if you kill someone that is a mistake you can never ever fix.

    Killing people on death row does stop them from killing but so does life in jail. The only difference is that one is vindictive, expensive and irreversable and the other is not.

    Almost all exectutions in the last 25 years have been in the south with Texas being responsible for about 1/2 of them and murder rates if I remember correctly increased in the south and decreased in the north.

    We are one of the only counteries that use the death penatly on

    1) minors (under 18 yrs of age)
    2) and mentally retarded

    We have also as a county executed people on circumstanial evidence alone frequently, which means our legal system executed murders when there was no way to be sure if they had in fact committed the murder.

    here read this one...

    http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/factsheets/PhillipStroud.html

    I can tell you if you block off 20 minutes every day for a week to study the death penalty on the net you will be amazed at the level of unprofessionalism and injustice exists and how many people were killed or put on death row that were no guilty at all.
     
  19. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Messages:
    624
    Did you even read the sites you quoted? Or are you just going to continue to propegate liberal bleeding heart propaganda all over the place.

    First of all, all of the sites you quoted are anti-DP and completely biased. None of those sites are factual, just a bunch of people screaming about injustice.

    You link to the "wrongful executions" is crap, as it's wrongful convictions and those peoples sentances were commuted to life or they were released. They were not put to death.

    We no longer use the death penalty on mentally retarded people as I showed you above and you failed to read. We are NOT the only country who uses the death penalty on minors either, so you are wrong again.

    No one in this thread thinks that the DP is a deterrent, so you are off on a tangent with no reason.

    But like much of your post, it's propaganda BS with no factual information.

    I have studied the Death Penalty at length. And while I believe that there are problems in the system, overall it does protect society from sociopaths who will continue their crimes if released.

    Try being objective about an argument instead of coming in full of emotionally weak arguments. It helps your side...
     
  20. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    "What makes that different from gunning someone down on the streets?"

    If you cannot see the difference between someone gunning down ppl in the streets, and someone being killed as punishment for murderous crimes....i dunno what to say. This is always an argument against the death penalty but it seems obviously simpleton and erroneous to me. Can you see the difference between: a. someone being kidnapped/abducted, thrown into basement cell, and held against their will and b. someone being thrown in jail for burglary? I mean it is obvious they are on opposite sides of the law and order.

    Now, I agree there are major problems with the justice system. The most persuasive arguments against the death penalty are those that focus on these issues. The death penalty should be reserved for absolute worst of crimes and only be used when irrefutable evidence is available. This is of course a fuzzy line. I think there should be a stipulation in which DNA evidence must be available before the death penalty is even considered.

    I thought the Illinois governor should have looked at the death row cases individually instead of taking them all of death row. That is, however, one state among many that needs to overhaul their death penalty laws and justice system as a whole.
     
  21. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    I do. Maybe not as effective as it should be, but it does serve as a deterrent.
    <BR>&nbsp;
    From this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp107&r_n=sr315.107&sel=TOC_173893&
    <BR>&nbsp;
    Senate Rpt.107-315 - THE INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2002<BR>&nbsp;

    Perhaps the most probative evidence that capital punishment is a substantial deterrent of homicide--that is influences whether criminals will kill their victims, or even bring a loaded gun to a crime--comes from the statements of those in the best position to know.
    <BR>&nbsp;
    John Coughlin, a retired New York City policeman, has recounted that when he `patrolled Flatbush Avenue in the 1950s'--a time New York regularly carried out executions--`at least half the time when we stopped an armed robbery, the gun turned out to be unloaded.' Coughlin explains: `The criminals wanted the fear of the gun, but they didn't want even the slightest possibility that the gun might accidentally go off. That meant `going to the chair.' The Capital Question, National Review, July 17, 2000, at 4245.
    <BR>&nbsp;
    The phenomenon described by Coughlin has been noted by several members of this Committee who have served as prosecutors in highly-populated jurisdictions. Senator Specter, who formerly served as District Attorney of Philadelphia, and has tried capital murder cases, has stated that `ased on this experience, I am personally convinced that many professional robbers and burglars are deterred from taking weapons in the course of robberies and burglaries because of the fear that a killing will result, and that would be murder in the first degree.' 141 Cong. Rec. S7893 (June 7, 1995).
    <BR>&nbsp;
    Senator Specter has described a case in which three criminals decided to rob a grocery store in North Philadelphia. They talked it over, and the oldest of the group, Williams, had a revolver which he brandished in front of his two younger coconspirators. When Carter, age 18, and Rivers, 17, saw the gun they said to Williams that they would not go along on the robbery if he took the gun because of their fear that a death might result and they might face capital punishment--the electric chair.
    <BR>&nbsp;
    Senator Feinstein has described the same deterrent effect at work in San Francisco. She has stated:
    <BR>&nbsp;
    There has been a lot of discussion as to whether the death penalty is or is not a deterrent. But I remember well in the 1960s, when I was sentencing a woman convicted of robbery in the first degree, and I remember looking at her commitment sheet and I saw that she carried a weapon that was unloaded into a grocery store robbery. I asked her the question: `Why was the gun unloaded?' She said to me: `So I would not panic, kill somebody, and get the death penalty.' That was firsthand testimony directly to me that the death penalty in place in California in the sixties was in fact a deterrent.
    <BR>&nbsp;
     
  22. fireguy_31 mors ante servitium Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    667
    Ard...
    Okay, I won't..........

    On the death penalty.....
    Irrespective of what?

    On Utilitarianism
    Incarceration is all that's needed to keep those 100 from harming society, not the death penalty.

    On the problems
    May I suggest: this statement shows death is impartial, and the justice system is not. Again, more proof our justice system -which is a precursor to the death penalty - is fallible. More reason to abolish the death penalty, that is: until our justice system becomes impartial.

    On support
    I'm not sure where your logic is anchored here. Are you saying this supports a death penalty argument? If so expand, in order to earn the logical stamp of approval.

    Without question, you've done your homework. What i think you've failed to do is analyze your knowledge critically.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2004
  23. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Messages:
    624
    I can not argue that I do not have Utilitarianistic tendancies. Incarcerating them does not keep them from harming society. They harm other prisoners who are only incarcerated for a short time and have a chance of being rehabilitated. Those people have the right to be protected too. They will again become contributing members of society... unless of course they are abused inside prison and then they have a much higher chance of committing greater crimes on the outside once released. We do not need to create more victims.

    If you can say, without question, that these people will be incarcerated for the remainder of their natural lives, without the possibility of parole, isolated from other inmates and guards at all times, without the ability to poison others minds through mail and visits... then I would be all for life in prison. But we all know that that's not the possibility.




    That's not what I am saying. I think the justice system is not as fallible as everyone makes it out to be. I think that it is biased, and that it is rasist. I think that it's a human flaw that people see white people as somehow more civilized than their minority counterparts and so they get the death penalty less. That is what is wrong. I'm saying that more people should get the death penalty, not less.




    I have analyzed what I know carefully and objectively. I have, in college visited a prison as part of a sociology class to study their interactions with other inmates. I have talked at length with both my mother, who is a pastor of a maximum security prison in Colorado and a flaming hearted liberal, and my best friend who is a forensic psychologist and knows the human mind. The sociopathic mind knows no conscience when it comes to other human beings. They have, for some reason seperated themselves from society and lashed out at it (murdered, raped, assualted). They will continue to do so in most cases, as pointed out by the high recidivism rates I quoted from the DoJ. Those statistics do not include the most violent of these criminals, i.e. the people who are in for natural life or on death row as those people are never released so they do not reoffend. The numbers for crimes committed inside prison by these people is scattered at best, because most goes unreported.

    I have thought at length about it. Debated it with family and friends for years. Attended candlelight vigils, and studied death penalty cases at length. I follow the Supreme Court rulings and am aware of upcoming rulings, like the upcoming Roper v. Simmons case this fall, which could landmark a decision to not give the death penalty to people who have committed a crime as a juvenile. Christopher Simmons, was 17 when he was arrested for the murder of Shirley Crook. The Missouri Supreme Court determined that juvenile executions violated the Eighth Ammendment's provision against cruel and unusual punishment. Simmons' death sentence was overturned, and the decision is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court for all juveniles. Hopefully, they will make the right decision as they have for people with mental retardation. We'll know sometime this fall.
     

Share This Page