The Death Penalty

[poopgoblin]

Personally, I do support the death penalty. However, I don't support the way we execute people. It costs more to execute a person than it does to keep them in prison for life, but if we just used a firing squad or some rope, that wouldn't be the case.

 

The only situations where I don't support the death penalty is in instances like the one a few years back where the man (I can't remember his name) killed his pregnant wife. He's on death row right now, but he doesn't deserve death. He needs to be thrown in a deep, dark hole and allowed to rot.

 

Also, I think that the punishment for vermin like child molesters needs to be bumped up to either "the hole" or execution.

[Landsknecht]

I am against the death penalties for several reasons.

 

1. Technology may make us pay later. With the advent of forensics, a good number of people on death row were found innocent, so what will happen with the next advance in forensics?

2. Statistically, it does not act as a deterrent. Therefore, it becomes a form of legal revenge.

3. It is more expensive to put someone to death and give them their right to due process than it is to just keep them in prison for life.

4. There is a subtle bit of racism in the death penalty. For example: A black person is more likely to receive the death penalty if they kill a white person than if they kill another black person.

5. I simply do not trust the government to decide who lives and who dies and how it is done.

 

The situations I support the death penalty are in cases during war in which the criminal poses a threat if they are allowed to live in prison. These cases fall outside the conventional view of the death penalty however. Such cases are: Treason, espionage, certain war crimes, etc.

[poopgoblin]

Treason

So Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

 

Any way, you said that it wasn't cost effecient, that's why I suggest that we stop using all that high-tech gear and just use a nice cheap bullet or two.

[Landsknecht]

Treason

So Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

 

I would say Bush (OK, maybe not him but at least the people he surrounds himself with) since they purposely lied us into a conflict that has severely weakened the US. Now that's for another thread now, isn't it?

 

Any way, you said that it wasn't cost effecient, that's why I suggest that we stop using all that high-tech gear and just use a nice cheap bullet or two.

 

The high cost is mainly due to all the appeals they are entitled to, which is something you cannot cut.

[thanateros]

So Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

 

Any way, you said that it wasn't cost effecient, that's why I suggest that we stop using all that high-tech gear and just use a nice cheap bullet or two.

 

What's not cost effective of the death penalty is the fact that prisoners on death row are there for a long time before their sentence is carried out. Think of how much money it costs to feed them, bathe them, provide basic needs, pay the guards watching their unit etc. The price doesn't just cover the price of the lethal injection dose, but all the costs of keeping them alive as well.

 

The death penalty as a deterrent to extremely violent crimes is an absolute joke. Any introductory psychology student knows that in order for a punishment or reward to be effective, it needs to be administered immediately after the behavior. Ergo, logically, people given the death penalty should be killed immediately after their conviction. I don't actually believe that this would solve anything, I'm making the point that for anything to be a deterrent to specific behavior, the reward/punishment needs to be associated with it.

[Peregrine]

Also, a major part of the expense is the cost of the long, drawn-out appeals process. Where a convicted criminal might give up his appeals and just serve the sentence if it's only prison time, virtually every death penalty case is appealed to the maximum extent possible. The lawyers aren't going to be satisfied until it's been to the supreme court, pardon requests have been filed with the governor, pardon requests with the president, etc. So there's a lot of costs beyond just housing the prisoner until execution day.

 

 

As for my opinion... in theory, I'm for the death penalty. There are a lot of worthless "people" in our society, who are clearly evil and need to be removed. But in the real world, there are some major problems:

 

1) Until we become omniscient gods, no justice system is 100% effective. Innocent people are punished (and later freed), sentences are biased, etc. It's the concept of "better to let a hundred guilty people go free than to punish a single innocent". If a person is unfairly punished with prison time, we can at least restore all we can of their life... if we execute them, it's too late.

 

2) I'm not a nice person. There is no afterlife, so death is the easy way out for these people. It's far better to let them rot in a prison cell for the rest of their lives. And even if I'm wrong, who cares... they'll have all of eternity to suffer for their crimes, so what difference does it make if they get there a few years later?

 

3) Like Thanateros said, it's not an effective deterrent. To make it an effective deterrent (as opposed to just removing a threat, which life in prison does equally well), it needs to be an immediate sentence. But to have an immediate sentence, you have to abandon all hope of justice... innocent people will die by the thousands, since there's no time for a fair trial to find all the evidence. I don't think I really need to explain why this is a problem.

 

4) Like Landsknecht, I don't trust the government that much. Point #1 is true in theory, but our government doesn't even do a very good job of getting "as close as possible". Just take a look at the various abuses performed in the name of "national security"... I don't trust the government that invented the concept of "unlawful combatants" (what a joke.... why not just call them "traitors to the Crown" or "enemies of the State" and be done with it?) with the power of life and death over its citizens.

[Switch]

I think all the cons for the death penalty have been listed. There aren't really many pros. It's simply a barbaric old process that should have been removed from the American "justice" system decades ago, following most of the rest of the planet's example. "Eye for an eye" is not only wrong IMO, but it's also completely hypocritical of the US government in this case considering what religion they constantly tote as being their own (murder most definitely not being a part of it. And it is murder). Killing someone because they killed/did something to someone else doesn't do any good, and neither is it "justice". Also a lot of the methods used are just sick. So yes, that's my opinion on it. ;)

[elpiggo]

I don't trust the government that much. Point #1 is true in theory, but our government doesn't even do a very good job of getting "as close as possible"

Why are people so critical of the government? With the exception of a few politicians, everybody working for any government is highly intelligent, so shouldn't they be the ones making the decisions? Would you rather put your trial in the hands of somebody with a degree in law, or a 16 year old school dropout who works in McDonald's?

[Povuholo]

Would you rather put your trial in the hands of somebody with a degree in law, or a 16 year old school dropout who works in McDonald's?

Well at least we'd get a cheaper Big Mac!

 

I'm lazy today so I'm just going to say that I have the same opinion as Switch, which I do. Murder is murder. Just because someone took a life that doesn't mean you can take his.

[Peregrine]

I don't trust the government that much. Point #1 is true in theory, but our government doesn't even do a very good job of getting "as close as possible"

Why are people so critical of the government? With the exception of a few politicians, everybody working for any government is highly intelligent, so shouldn't they be the ones making the decisions? Would you rather put your trial in the hands of somebody with a degree in law, or a 16 year old school dropout who works in McDonald's?

 

Textbook black and white fallacy. Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean that the other side is right by default. A 16 year old dropout is a worthless moron. Most of the people in the government are worthless morons (if you think there's some test of intelligence to get a government job, you're a hopeless idealist). Most of the people in the US are worthless morons.

 

And you're obviously clueless about how criminal trials work. Your life isn't in the hands of a well-trained judge, it's in the hands of the 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty. Jury trials, while a good idea in theory, are a joke in practice. Forget about a well-educated jury, having any relevant technical knowledge or higher education is a fast way to get yourself removed from the jury pool. The lawyers don't want rational decisions based on facts and evidence, they want appeals to emotion and dramatic speeches.

 

The only real difference between your dropout cook and the government as a whole is that the 16 year old is only worthless moron. Politicians are worthless morons AND evil. If you have any illusions of justice, especially from the current administration, I have three words for you: "unlawful enemy combatant".