Death penalty

Remove all ads!

What is your opinion about death penalty?

I am against it, but I think it should be applied -only- on certain occasions(like small kids' rapers, people who killed over 5 others, evil men who will not change to the better, etc).

 

I agree. Repeat offenders of the type of crime called rape (in any sense) or murder.

If the said being has no concern for life they won't be sorry to lose their own.

 

And what gives nations the right to kill?

Anyways, it'll be more expensive and less worse than a live long sentence...

Just lock those types up in a small cell, and just forget them, once they're imprisoned, there are more things to worry about.

 

Most people who earn the Death Penalty can only be called "human" in the most general of terms.

Allowing them to prosper and live out their days laughing over those who were murdered, is cold and harsh for those who lived.

No civilized society can be anti-justice.

[Edited: I cannot spell to save my life! ]

 

Well, that's the place for the Gandalf quote, which was used in the Alley recently. Can't remember exact, but didn't it go like this:"can you kill someone, yes. Can you bring someone back to life, no. That's a decision, where failure is final and can't be corrected.

I am personally against death penality. And as the odds that it really will be seriously proposed in my country are about a million to one, this is pure theory for me.

I personally think, having lost a live in jail, no way out, only time to think, think and repent, is the most cruel penality we've got. I remember an article about Timothy McVeigh, which stated, he actually looked forward to his execution. Death was salvation to him, the easy way out, because he would never ever have to bother with his conscience. Give me quick death, I'm dead and never have to think about what I've done.

To the cost. There is nothing as expensive as a death penality. Iirc, to kill someone is approx. 15 times more expensive, then keeping them in jail for the rest of their lives.

 

I always have been a proponent of the death penalty. If you are familiar with the American "luxury" jails, you'll understand why.

Demographics show that the majority of people that commit violent crimes are from low-income families or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds. The life that they would get in prison is actually more luxurious than the life that they would be living outside. That isn't much of a punishment.

That said, it should only be applied in the most violent of crimes. Murder, rape, these are sufficient crimes to warrant the death penalty. A parking ticket is not.

Does anyone else here remember Hammurabi's Code of Laws? That essentially operated on an "eye-for-an-eye" concept. You do something to somebody else, you have that done to you. It proved a very effective means of reducing crimes in Babylon, far more than anything we currently use.

About it being more expensive, let's see some figures on that, shall we? Here, it costs $40k per year per prisoner. Now, let's assume a 20 year-old person gets sentenced to a life in jail for homicide. That's a conservative estimate of 50 years that we'll be holding him.

$40,000 * 50 years = $2 million over a lifetime.

Assuming that it costs 15 times that for the death penalty, that comes out to costing $30 million per executed prisoner, which is something that I highly doubt is accurate.

 

I'm still for the idea of kicking everyone out of Australia, and put that island to the use it was intended for

Or some form of battle royale

I think that for some cases death is appropriate, but that seems like an easy way out for those who would actually deserve death. Torture would be better for those. Too bad current society is a bit touchy about that nowadays

 

Rastor, I am highly sceptical of the $40k number. We've had this discussion before actually and the first time that number appeared was when Nutrimat used it but without giving a source. Conversely, I did find a source stating that in California, one of the more expensive states, it cost $21k a year to keep a prisoner. I'm not sure about your number. I could see the number for some circumstances, such as a diabetic for example, but suspect that isn't the norm.

For evidence that it is more expensive, from our earlier discussion, here are some examples:

The following example doesn't factor in the additional cost of death penalty appeals, infrastructure costs, or the cost of housing death row inmates:

And from another source:

Governemental sources have reached the same conclusion:

I really think it is apparent that it is more expensive to execute someone than to imprison them.

The cost argument isn't really a justification or objection imo but since it was brought up...

Problems that I perceive with the death penalty are:

1) the inability of the system to provide a high enough degree of certainty. With over 100 men released from death row, I think it is apparent we aren't alway correct when we convict. Given that the death penalty is the harshet punishment without recourse I think the level of certainty necessary to justly apply is very high and we simply, as a system, don't approach that level. Given the incredible difficulty of reversing a death sentence let alone being released it would be naive of us to think that if 100 + men have been mistakenly sentenced to death that we know of that more have not been sentenced and executed that we do not know of. This is unacceptable.

2) There are disturbing statistics that on their face raise concerns regarding the factor of race in the application of the death penalty. For example, as of 2002 iirc, despite 80% of all murder victims in Maryland being black every person on death row was there for murdering a white person. A federal study concluded the odds of your being executed significantly rise if you kill a white person rather than a black -- Janet Reno was 'troubled' by this report. Through 1998 Texas, despite leading the nation in executions, had never executed someone for killing a black person (this has subsequently changed iirc with the dragging death of the black gentleman in Texas by a group of thugs.) Despite over half of all murder victims being black over 80% of all sentenced to death killed white people.

Statistics show that the quickest way to get the death penalty is to be a black person who kills (or allegedly kills) a white person, particularly a woman. I think the evidence demonstrates a connection between race and sentence that is unacceptable imo. Until we can be sure that illegitimate factors don't play a role, we should not use the death penalty.

Now, nowhere above did I say the death penalty was wrong or that some people don't deserve it. So, arguing that, for example, "well, what about person x who did y, shouldn't he be executed?" doesn't affect the argument. I'm arguing that the systems isn't sufficiently certain and devoid of bias to apply the penalty as part of the system.

The links to the relevant info quoted above can be found in the previous discussion here:
http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000015;p=2

Of course others disagree, like BTA. But then BTA is a murdering neanderthal so what do you expect.

[Tehehe. And you're a murderer-loving whacko! - BTA]

[ June 16, 2003, 19:48: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

Hm, so my 15 times was obviously wrong and I did not remember correctly. Well, anyway, the "cost" thing will always be brought up. I am just thinking, that the 15 times might have been from a comparision between average cost of a trial and the cost of a trial (incl. appeals) with death penality involved .

That's a little off topic now. That's my personal theory to the cost-issue, it's quite easier to think, hey, dead, that means no cost anymore. That I guess, is always the first logical conclusion. Only evaluation of involved costs in an accountant-manner bring up more cost-clarity. Death-penality is not the only issue were this pattern exist, in my opinion. The clue for me is, an accountant will most of the time be trusted, when his calculating a brilliant way to invest or economise money, but hey, don't mix in politics.

 

One other thing looking back bothers me a bit:

Have you ever been in or visited a prison Rastor? I mean a prison of the sort where the poor people go, not where the rare politician in trouble may go. In the link to the old discussion above I linked a guide to prison writte by an ex-con that makes for quite a read I thought -- not exactly what I would call luxury.

EDIT -- here is the link:
http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2FCapitolHill%2FCongress%2F6425%2Fsurvival.html

It includes gems like this about your first days there -- WARNING -- it isn't nice:

It goes on. Point is, I don't equate it with luxury.

[ June 16, 2003, 19:46: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

I recommend you all watch OZ -- it often explores this issue -- given what happens in jail, I'd rather get a needle in my arm.

I'm not the statistic hound the rest of you are, but here's one statistic I know for certain is true, and I need no source. Here it is:

Killers who receive the death penalty never commit another crime. In other words, the recidivism rate for these bastards is ZERO! On that basis alone, I support the death penalty regardless of the cost -- what is money compared to a little girl raped and murdered by a guy sentenced to "life" -- 8 years ago -- who is now out on parole?

I understand mistakes may be made, but that is part of life. On that theory, we shouldn't do anything at all for fear of making a mistake.

Additionally, many cases are VERY cut and dried. Take someone like Dahlmer, or Manson, or Bundy, or. . . .

Paul Bernardo! (he's a Canadian criminal who raped, tortured, and killed girls -- and captured the crimes on videotape.) The tapes were shown to the jury -- there is NO F*****G WAY a mistake was made in his conviction, but now he gets 3 squares a day and special protection from the rest of the prison population. His continued breathing makes me ill. I'd push the plunger in myself.

 

To me, given the severity of the death penalty, I don't feel we should brush aside the state killing an innocent man or woman because 'mistakes are part of life.' Because the consequences are the most severe we know, the certainty should be equally high. If we can't obtain that certainty, we have no business with a system implementing such a punishment. We know men have been convicted and served a decade or more on death row before it turned out that their innocence for the crime they were convicted for could be proven. It would be naive to think we were always getting it right - it isn't even really anyone's fault - people are fallible, that's the nature of the business.

I can agree that in theory certain people deserve death; it is the only punishment adequately harsh enough to justly fit their crime. However, I take the question not to be whether certain people deserve the penalty but whether the system should include the penalty. If we can't assure that we aren't killing people for something they didn't do, the system shouldn't use the penalty.

Also, the "not doing anything for fear of being wrong" argument fails to appreciate that a higher degree of certainty should be required for killing someone than for locking them up. While "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for both here in the US, we should, imo, make sure it is REALLY beyond a reaosnable doubt to kill someone and sadly the evidence is that we just don't always do that.

 

Again, Death-Penality is for me a pure theoretical thing. Yeah, I know, it's a quote from an entertainment book, but I still think it hit's the nail on the head.

Mistakes happen. But in case of death penalty, there's no correction possible. On the other hand, I personally still think, that life-long improsement is a pretty severe penalty. Because people change and start to rethink and repent there deeds. There is no way out. No life, no dreams, nothing. Death is chosen by many people delibaretly as the easy-way out or as salvation from pain and suffering endured while alive. Why let people escape, who deserve jail for life ?

And that's even for a Swiss-jail, which is compared to most jails on earth probably like paradise.

 

I agree that the death penalty should be used sparingly, but in cases where there is NO doubt whatsoever, I feel it is an affront to the victims and reckless endangerment of the society to allow these predatory sorts to live.

 

This topic has been hashed and rehashed plenty of times and still there is only one argument for death penalty: Revenge. I dont want to live in a society that practices revenge. There can never be any justification to lower the society down to level of the murderers and criminials by making society a murderer herself.

Oh and Rastor, dont you think there is a reason for most of the crime coming for the poor end of the demographics? I really dont think they kill someone to get into a nice cozy prison cell. Perhaps if you tried to do something about poverty and despair and you wouldnt have so many criminals.

 

If we killed more people, we would have less criminals

 

You stole the words right out of my mouth Faragon.

Well back to the subject at hand. Killing some one makes you a murderer does it not? So if you killed a murderer does this not also make you a murderer? Even if the law allows you to kill that person as a "death penalty". Who's better; the person who kills first; or the person who kills the first person for revenge? IMO the origonal (sp?) murderer is a better human, because the 2nd person knows for sure it is wrong to kill but does it any way.

I believe that the system in place in New Zealand is good. Murderers get given a life sentence, but can apply for porole (sp?) after 20 years. I think that 20 years in a small cell is enough to make people rethink the way they think.

Where's if you kill someone they can't rethink what they did wrong, can they?

could it not also be said that it was a mistake of the murderer/raper/whatever to commit the crime? Then they should be let off if the government is let off when it makes a mistake and deals out someone the "death penalty" when they are don't deserve it?

 

RotKU -

You cannot "kill" someone who is wicked enough to earn the death penalty.

You are simply, to use veterinarian terms, "putting them down" like any sick animal.

 

No. Killing, does not make you a murderer. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Killing is to put an end to life. The difference is, that one is considered a crime, the other isn't.

Consider this: A man comes into your neighbours house, and shoots the man and his wife. You wake up due to the gunshots, and go out to investigate. Just before he aims for the kids, you see him, and club him in the back of the head. Skullfracture, he's dead.

You killed him, but are you a murderer? No. You struck out in defense of others. You killed a man. You didn't murder him. No sensible court would convict you.

Also, if killing equalled murder, we'd be very short on men in the army

 

I did some research, because death-penalty here dates back to the stoneages, something like that. Most Cantons have abolished the death-penatly in the middle of the 19th century. But some Cantons did execute people, like 1 in every ten years, nationwide. Until federal-law abolished it 1942.

The funny thing is, as a stated before, death-penalty has no chance to have ever a comeback here. And ironically, the US is an example over here, why the death-penalty has nothing to do at all with fighting off crime.

That's from an interview with one of the extreme right party ( SVP Züri ) leaders :

You don't think, that death penalty is a deterrend ?

No, I don't think that the death-penatlty has any use at all. America has the death-penalty, but their crime rates are way higher then ours. And I don't think, that people should play with lives. It's an ethic question for me.... My opinion is clear, the state shall never have the right to kill people.