The Death Penalty (3 Viewers)

[General Malaise]

You should turn this thread into a poll asking if people would watch an execution.

They could do pay-per-view.

I'd watch a few of these dirtbags die. Those two guys that raped and burned up the doctor's family in Conn? I'd pay to watch them die a horrible death.

I am curious what you think you would get out of it.

Satisfaction?

Knowledge that taxpayer dollars aren't going to feed, clothe and house a multiple murderer?

Costs twice as much to kill them as it does for them to serve life without parole.

I'll fully admit here I don't have any stats to refute you, but how can this possibly be true? And if it is true, why is it like that?

 

[NCCommish]

You should turn this thread into a poll asking if people would watch an execution.

They could do pay-per-view.

I'd watch a few of these dirtbags die. Those two guys that raped and burned up the doctor's family in Conn? I'd pay to watch them die a horrible death.

I am curious what you think you would get out of it.

Satisfaction?

Knowledge that taxpayer dollars aren't going to feed, clothe and house a multiple murderer?

I am not convinced that life in prison is lesser punishment than dying.And it's not the multiple murderers/death row inmates that are eating up the majority our prison tax dollars. It's all the non-violent drug offenders that our justice keeps cramming into our overcrowded prisons. Reforming mandatory sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug offenders would be a much better way to save your tax dollars.

I pretty much agree with all you say but still see no reason to continue to pay for a murderer to live. I agree a hundredfold about drug offenders (mostly mj) but see no reason why both can't be done. It's also argued that executing a prisoner is more expensive. Dunno about that but I'd be happier with my tax dollars going towards removing from the Earth people who've taken others from it than to keep them alive.

It's twice as much. Roughly 1 million to house a prisoner for life and 2 million to execute him.

 

[FavreCo]

I'll fully admit here I don't have any stats to refute you, but how can this possibly be true? And if it is true, why is it like that?

He's padding his arguement with lawyer fees.

 

[togo]

I didn't realize that we thought of it as a deterrent. I was under the impression it was supposed to be a punishment.

That's what I thought too. You also can call it justice. You commit one of these crimes you lost your right to continue in society and you get eliminated, game over, you're out. You blew it. And as far as being a deterrent goes, it has stopped me from killing a few people so it was a deterrent for me.

So I guess it is a deterrent too.

 

[Jewell]

Life in prison is often worse than death, IMO.

I'd rather die.Tim, make that a poll and also toss in whether you'd rather serve life in prison if you were a convicted sexual offender or would you rather submit to voluntary castration...http://m.kfdm.com/articles/castration-41757-tullier-advocate.html

 

[Charlie Frown]

You should turn this thread into a poll asking if people would watch an execution.

They could do pay-per-view.

I'd watch a few of these dirtbags die. Those two guys that raped and burned up the doctor's family in Conn? I'd pay to watch them die a horrible death.

I am curious what you think you would get out of it.

Satisfaction?

Knowledge that taxpayer dollars aren't going to feed, clothe and house a multiple murderer?

Costs twice as much to kill them as it does for them to serve life without parole.

I can buy a .22 LR bullets for less than half a cent. One behind the ear should do the trick.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

You should turn this thread into a poll asking if people would watch an execution.

Very few would watch and of those that did very few would watch more than one. Those that were multiple watchers should probably be watched themselves.

I would watch an execution.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

It's twice as much. Roughly 1 million to house a prisoner for life and 2 million to execute him.

This is the only reason I am wary of supporting executions. We need to figure out how to lower these costs. If we can't, then abolish the death penalty.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I'll fully admit here I don't have any stats to refute you, but how can this possibly be true? And if it is true, why is it like that?

It's because of the appeals process. That can be remedied. One way would be to amend the system as I outlined yesterday to Timmy. It's not because of what it costs to actually keep them in prison.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Well it's a sign of an immature society but beyond that we get it wrong too often.

Both the Chinese and Persian cultures are much older than ours yet they're among the top societies to use capital punishment. Does that alone make them more immature societies?Statistically, capital punishment is most prominent in Asian and Arab nations and least prominent in European nations. So what are you trying to say about those societies in relation to each other?

That societies that practice revenge on their citizens have some growing up to do. I thought that was clear. Especially when, at least in our case, we seem somewhat predisposed to killing the wrong guy.

No we don't.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

We discussed a lot of this in this thread: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=586573&st=0&p=12976433&hl=+death%20+penalty&fromsearch=1entry12976433

 

[untateve]

The death penalty has never failed. That person is dead. They won't be coming back. Used correctly, the death penalty is the perfect deterrent. Kill? ok, you die too. Not next year, Not next decade. How about tomorrow.

There are enough cases in which an individual sentenced to death was later found to be innocent due to DNA testing. I'm not okay with innocent people being murdered by the state. I also worked in a prison for 4 years. Let me assure you, life in prison is a far worse sentence than the death penalty.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The death penalty has never failed. That person is dead. They won't be coming back. Used correctly, the death penalty is the perfect deterrent. Kill? ok, you die too. Not next year, Not next decade. How about tomorrow.

There are enough cases in which an individual sentenced to death was later found to be innocent due to DNA testing. I'm not okay with innocent people being murdered by the state. I also worked in a prison for 4 years. Let me assure you, life in prison is a far worse sentence than the death penalty.

People always mention this as though it happens all the time. It's mostly an urban legend. It's not anywhere near the problem some folk believe. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

 

[Ignoramus]

Well it's a sign of an immature society but beyond that we get it wrong too often.

Both the Chinese and Persian cultures are much older than ours yet they're among the top societies to use capital punishment. Does that alone make them more immature societies?Statistically, capital punishment is most prominent in Asian and Arab nations and least prominent in European nations. So what are you trying to say about those societies in relation to each other?

That societies that practice revenge on their citizens have some growing up to do. I thought that was clear. Especially when, at least in our case, we seem somewhat predisposed to killing the wrong guy.

And what if those other nations don't look at it as revenge, but instead look at it as a useful deterrent? Seems to work for Singapore.

Really? They give you the death penalty for drug use. They still have addicts. They still have people to kill every year. In fact based on their size they are a killing machine and yet they still have more to kill. Not seeing the success here.

Here you go...Wiki opening sentence: "The crime rate in Singapore is one of the lowest in the world."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Singapore

"You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." -- Unknown

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information." -- Michael Scott

 

[randall146]

The death penalty has never failed. That person is dead. They won't be coming back. Used correctly, the death penalty is the perfect deterrent. Kill? ok, you die too. Not next year, Not next decade. How about tomorrow.

I don't think you know what a deterrent is.

Some texts actually split deterrence into "general" and "specific." He's speaking of the latter (also called "incapacitation") so technically he is right.

Specific deterrence is not also called incapacitation. They are different. Even technically he is still wrong.You probably haven't heard these words before, but - you should know better than that.

 

[Sabertooth]

I didn't realize that we thought of it as a deterrent. I was under the impression it was supposed to be a punishment.

It's revenge pure and simple.

Revenge is hard wired into the human psyche.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The death penalty is very satisfying for society to flush the human waste off the planet, cleansing it and making it safer for all of us. I’d not only watch the executions, but if it was my kin was raped, maimed or killed, I’d ask for a few minutes alone with a number of sharp objects( ala Braveheart), before the hood went over his face. Then I’d pull that lever and watch the sparks fly.

And if it’s true that it costs twice as much to keep execute as life without parole, then that is just an opportunity to a problem that needs to be fixed. If we summarily end all execution stays, and damn everyone on death row post haste, we’d save countless millions of dollars, and put a lot of lawyers out of work. Fry them all, and if one here or there was actually innocent, oh well...let God sort them out.

Gov’t mandates reduction in a lot of things. How ‘bout a 50% reduction in death row inmates, over a year? It’d be a nice start. And feed all their lawyers a consolation ice cream cone. Lick on that!

 

[mad sweeney]

You should turn this thread into a poll asking if people would watch an execution.

They could do pay-per-view.

I'd watch a few of these dirtbags die. Those two guys that raped and burned up the doctor's family in Conn? I'd pay to watch them die a horrible death.

I am curious what you think you would get out of it.

Satisfaction?

Knowledge that taxpayer dollars aren't going to feed, clothe and house a multiple murderer?

I am not convinced that life in prison is lesser punishment than dying.And it's not the multiple murderers/death row inmates that are eating up the majority our prison tax dollars. It's all the non-violent drug offenders that our justice keeps cramming into our overcrowded prisons. Reforming mandatory sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug offenders would be a much better way to save your tax dollars.

I pretty much agree with all you say but still see no reason to continue to pay for a murderer to live. I agree a hundredfold about drug offenders (mostly mj) but see no reason why both can't be done. It's also argued that executing a prisoner is more expensive. Dunno about that but I'd be happier with my tax dollars going towards removing from the Earth people who've taken others from it than to keep them alive.

It's twice as much. Roughly 1 million to house a prisoner for life and 2 million to execute him.

That'd have to change too. There have to be plenty of ways to cut down the costs, which I'd be very interested in looking up anyways. I can't fathom how 20 years in jail is half as expensive as "one" injection. Those drugs can't be that expensive and if they are then there's a lot of pockets being lined along the way to the gas chamber.eta; Someone mentioned appeals processes and lawyer fees as part of the costs. I think before we can institute higher numbers of executions, as I said originally, the system needs to be revamped. As much as I am in favor of it, I want to make sure the right person is on the gurney, so tome it's not just a matter of opening the floodgates and marching prisoners down the green mile. There's just got to be a better way of doing things than having someone on death row for 20 years going through endless technical appeals. And there are some cases, like the DC sniper and burning/raping Conn. guys that are without a doubt in anyone's mind in the world that they are guilty. Twenty years of appeals for that? No thanks.

 

[Jewell]

Here you go...

Wiki opening sentence: "The crime rate in Singapore is one of the lowest in the world."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Singapore

"You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." -- Unknown

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information." -- Michael Scott

The visual of this coming from Dwight was awesome.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm all for the death penalty but can't help but laugh at all the tough guys in here who claim they could easily take a life/torture the guy first.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I'm all for the death penalty but can't help but laugh at all the tough guys in here who claim they could easily take a life/torture the guy first.

It's not about being tough. Tell me when you have kids. Till then you just don't know.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm all for the death penalty but can't help but laugh at all the tough guys in here who claim they could easily take a life/torture the guy first.

It's not about being tough. Tell me when you have kids. Till then you just don't know.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm all for the death penalty but can't help but laugh at all the tough guys in here who claim they could easily take a life/torture the guy first.

It's not about being tough. Tell me when you have kids. Till then you just don't know.

I have kids, and I'm pretty sure I would throw up if I was asked to personally execute somebody. Yes, that includes somebody who was convicted of raping and murdering little kids, or whatever other hypothetical you want to dream up.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I'm all for the death penalty but can't help but laugh at all the tough guys in here who claim they could easily take a life/torture the guy first.

It's not about being tough. Tell me when you have kids. Till then you just don't know.

I have kids, and I'm pretty sure I would throw up if I was asked to personally execute somebody. Yes, that includes somebody who was convicted of raping and murdering little kids, or whatever other hypothetical you want to dream up.

I'd have to agree with you if it was anyone elses kids. But if if was my kids, then that's different.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm all for the death penalty but can't help but laugh at all the tough guys in here who claim they could easily take a life/torture the guy first.

It's not about being tough. Tell me when you have kids. Till then you just don't know.

I have kids, and I'm pretty sure I would throw up if I was asked to personally execute somebody. Yes, that includes somebody who was convicted of raping and murdering little kids, or whatever other hypothetical you want to dream up.

I'd have to agree with you if it was anyone elses kids. But if if was my kids, then that's different.

I don't know how I would react if somebody did something to my kids, and hopefully neither do you. I take solace in the fact that lots of people (millions?) have had bad things happen to their children over the course of the past several decades, and the overwhelming majority do not go vigilante.

 

[The Big Guy]

The retribution factor is working great. Kill and get caught, you will die. I think that the higher level of proof provided, the faster the execution should be,

 

[Yankee23Fan]

It's a practice that really has no place anymore in the civilian criminal justice system. As a society based on individual freedoms codified in a republican constitution, our fallback should always be to limit the state's power to take this ultimate step. Given that, we should do everything within our power to construct a system where the actual use of the death penalty is few and far between, and done after extensive checks, rechecks, and more checks. Given that we have pretty much constructed that system, we see where it is today:

The justice system cannot sustain the costs of the dealth penalty, not to mention other things. The decision to use the death penalty as a possible result for a jury is based far too much on political decisions that sometimes take on a life of their own. Given that the state and the enforcement arms of it are occupied by humans, there are mistakes and misteps all along the way. And the political capital to take a case to death penalty sentencing and actually carry it out after years of appeals and hearings is daunting to many a district attorney, especially those in an election cycle.

In order to do it right, with our current governmental structure and the status of our legal system, it's just too costly. And because of that, and what we should be doing in limiting the government's power over us every step of the way, I've long changed my mind on the death penalty and want to see it abolished in this country for good. I simply don't trust the system I work in every day to get these decisions right, and loathe the power it gives the government over the most important right we have. There are far too many political animals in prosecutors offices, too few competent public defenders, too few judges to take the review that is needed, too large a caseload for appealate courts to focus as much as they should on these type of cases, to many human traits in the police that gather the evidence, and far too much hands off political wrangling by governors who have the ultimate power most of the time when push comes to shove.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I don't know how I would react if somebody did something to my kids, and hopefully neither do you. I take solace in the fact that lots of people (millions?) have had bad things happen to their children over the course of the past several decades, and the overwhelming majority do not go vigilante.

You are probably right. I think I am upset over a recent article/update of a rape victim here in Tampa who just recently turned 20 and is wheelchair bound and eats through a tube for the rest of her life. Happened 3 years ago, and the state is considering cutting her funding for specialized therapy. They don't show her face (the pic cuts off at the bridge of her nose), but she looks eerily similar to my oldest daughter or what she is going to look like in a few years. Images like that make me blink back the tears.

 

[johnnycakes]

The retribution factor is working great. Kill and get caught, you will die. I think that the higher level of proof provided, the faster the execution should be,

There's something to be said for the way the Taliban handled things... the victim's family may carry out the execution, or they may bargain with the convicted to make a deal that will spare his life.Another great idea... you heard of those sites where you can sign on and "hunt" a live animal and, with a click of a mouse, a real rifle fire somewhere, bagging your target? Well, they could rig this up Gary Gilmore style, only selling the right to be one of the mouse clickers. Still a firing squad of 5 people, or whatever, still one gun with blanks... all set up and zeroed in on the target in advance. People could bid to be part of the virtual firing squad, 5 highest bidders getting a chance to be a mouse clicker. Then they could televise the whole thing on pay-per-view, generating revenues both from the bidders to carry out the execution and the viewers who would be deterred from committing a similar crime by watching the execution.

 

[Wrigley]

The death penalty is not a deterrent to murder...........why?

Cheap, public executions, would show potential murderers that there is a consequence for their actions.

 

[L5UT1ger]

My county DA does not charge a murderer with 1st degree murder because the cost of trying those cases is too burdensome. I found this out recently and was shocked.

 

[Chaka]

The death penalty has never failed. That person is dead. They won't be coming back. Used correctly, the death penalty is the perfect deterrent. Kill? ok, you die too. Not next year, Not next decade. How about tomorrow.

There are enough cases in which an individual sentenced to death was later found to be innocent due to DNA testing. I'm not okay with innocent people being murdered by the state. I also worked in a prison for 4 years. Let me assure you, life in prison is a far worse sentence than the death penalty.

People always mention this as though it happens all the time. It's mostly an urban legend. It's not anywhere near the problem some folk believe. http://www.deathpena...ssibly-innocent

What is the currently accepted number of innocent people we can kill before we reevaluate the system?

 

[Chaka]

I'm all for the death penalty but can't help but laugh at all the tough guys in here who claim they could easily take a life/torture the guy first.

I am glad someone made this point.Killing someone, anyone, is no joke and not nearly as easy to accomplish, physically or mentally, as some seem to think.

 

[Chaka]

You should turn this thread into a poll asking if people would watch an execution.

Very few would watch and of those that did very few would watch more than one. Those that were multiple watchers should probably be watched themselves.

I would watch an execution.

Am I the only one who watched Saddam's execution?

 

[Mello]

The death penalty is a good thing. Simply, there are some crimes that people deserve to die for committing. If it's too costly, get rid of a lot of the appeals process. If you think too many innocents get fried, fix the problems with the justice system that lead to innocents getting convicted. Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

 

[Ignoramus]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

 

[Chaka]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Yes, but this doesn't happen often enough for us to care.

 

[Jayrod]

The death penalty has never failed. That person is dead. They won't be coming back. Used correctly, the death penalty is the perfect deterrent. Kill? ok, you die too. Not next year, Not next decade. How about tomorrow.

There are enough cases in which an individual sentenced to death was later found to be innocent due to DNA testing. I'm not okay with innocent people being murdered by the state. I also worked in a prison for 4 years. Let me assure you, life in prison is a far worse sentence than the death penalty.

People always mention this as though it happens all the time. It's mostly an urban legend. It's not anywhere near the problem some folk believe. http://www.deathpena...ssibly-innocent

What is the currently accepted number of innocent people we can kill before we reevaluate the system?

Of course the answer is that the only acceptable number is zero, but that doesn't mean you throw the whole idea out the window.There are crimes that death is the only appropriate punishment. It is very important that we get that right, but that process doesn't negate the option.

 

[Chairshot]

The retribution factor is working great. Kill and get caught, you will die. I think that the higher level of proof provided, the faster the execution should be,

There's something to be said for the way the Taliban handled things... the victim's family may carry out the execution, or they may bargain with the convicted to make a deal that will spare his life.Another great idea... you heard of those sites where you can sign on and "hunt" a live animal and, with a click of a mouse, a real rifle fire somewhere, bagging your target? Well, they could rig this up Gary Gilmore style, only selling the right to be one of the mouse clickers. Still a firing squad of 5 people, or whatever, still one gun with blanks... all set up and zeroed in on the target in advance. People could bid to be part of the virtual firing squad, 5 highest bidders getting a chance to be a mouse clicker. Then they could televise the whole thing on pay-per-view, generating revenues both from the bidders to carry out the execution and the viewers who would be deterred from committing a similar crime by watching the execution.

I don't know if some of the "skin 'em alive" people in this thread are serious or not, but if half of the "great ideas" posted are honest, we have some posters with real, legit, clinical mental problems. Seek help.

 

[Mello]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

 

[Chaka]

The death penalty has never failed. That person is dead. They won't be coming back. Used correctly, the death penalty is the perfect deterrent. Kill? ok, you die too. Not next year, Not next decade. How about tomorrow.

There are enough cases in which an individual sentenced to death was later found to be innocent due to DNA testing. I'm not okay with innocent people being murdered by the state. I also worked in a prison for 4 years. Let me assure you, life in prison is a far worse sentence than the death penalty.

People always mention this as though it happens all the time. It's mostly an urban legend. It's not anywhere near the problem some folk believe. http://www.deathpena...ssibly-innocent

What is the currently accepted number of innocent people we can kill before we reevaluate the system?

Of course the answer is that the only acceptable number is zero, but that doesn't mean you throw the whole idea out the window.There are crimes that death is the only appropriate punishment. It is very important that we get that right, but that process doesn't negate the option.

If the answer to my question is "zero", then process does in fact negate the option. If you can design a process that works perfectly I will be more than happy to reevaluate my position. Frankly I don't think that's possible.

 

[Ignoramus]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

We're never going to have a perfect legal system in which only the guilty are convicted of crimes. I think saying that "a few innocent people will die no matter what" is a cop out.

 

[Chaka]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

It's not just because a few innocents get killed, although that is clearly significant (perhaps even the driver) it's also because it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't bring back the victims, it doesn't heal those have been hurt (vengeance will never fill the hole that comes from the loss of a loved one) and, most importantly, it doesn't make the general public any safer.It's bloodlust. Some are fine with that, although I think those numbers would diminish if the public could watch executions.

 

[Jayrod]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

It's not just because a few innocents get killed, although that is clearly significant (perhaps even the driver) it's also because it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't bring back the victims, it doesn't heal those have been hurt (vengeance will never fill the hole that comes from the loss of a loved one) and, most importantly, it doesn't make the general public any safer.It's bloodlust. Some are fine with that, although I think those numbers would diminish if the public could watch executions.

It accomplishes justice. True, correct, fair justice...something we all long for in life.

 

[RudiStein]

The death penalty is not a deterrent to murder...........why?Cheap, public executions, would show potential murderers that there is a consequence for their actions.

Pretty sure just about every criminal knows there are consequences for their actions. Somehow we still have crime.

 

[Mello]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

It's not just because a few innocents get killed, although that is clearly significant (perhaps even the driver) it's also because it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't bring back the victims, it doesn't heal those have been hurt (vengeance will never fill the hole that comes from the loss of a loved one) and, most importantly, it doesn't make the general public any safer.It's bloodlust. Some are fine with that, although I think those numbers would diminish if the public could watch executions.

That's fair enough. There's many other valid reasons to be against the death penalty. It's a moral choice. I think revenge is a valid reason because I believe committing some acts forfeits one's right to live. One's basis for determining what type of punishments are acceptable for the state to perform should be separate from being upset that innocents get convicted of crimes. That's a problem we should strive to resolve (even if perfection is impossible) regardless of the punishments being handed out.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

It's not just because a few innocents get killed, although that is clearly significant (perhaps even the driver) it's also because it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't bring back the victims, it doesn't heal those have been hurt (vengeance will never fill the hole that comes from the loss of a loved one) and, most importantly, it doesn't make the general public any safer.It's bloodlust. Some are fine with that, although I think those numbers would diminish if the public could watch executions.

I'm sure that many would indeed have an issue with going through the execution and see it as it happens. To watch that happen has to scar your psyche somewhat. So we shouldn't be glamourizing it, I agree.But you watch the smiling mugshot of the criminal that got away with his crime, and know that he still has the gift of the oxygen we all breathe, and it would be a comfort to put that rabid dog down. Call it a mercy killing, for the life he never had, nor ever will have. Whether it makes us safer or not, it helps some of us sleep better at night.

 

[Chaka]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

It's not just because a few innocents get killed, although that is clearly significant (perhaps even the driver) it's also because it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't bring back the victims, it doesn't heal those have been hurt (vengeance will never fill the hole that comes from the loss of a loved one) and, most importantly, it doesn't make the general public any safer.It's bloodlust. Some are fine with that, although I think those numbers would diminish if the public could watch executions.

It accomplishes justice. True, correct, fair justice...something we all long for in life.

The words "true", "correct" and "fair" when applied to justice are too highly subjective to even begin debating against. So I'll just say that I disagree.

 

[Chaka]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

It's not just because a few innocents get killed, although that is clearly significant (perhaps even the driver) it's also because it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't bring back the victims, it doesn't heal those have been hurt (vengeance will never fill the hole that comes from the loss of a loved one) and, most importantly, it doesn't make the general public any safer.It's bloodlust. Some are fine with that, although I think those numbers would diminish if the public could watch executions.

That's fair enough. There's many other valid reasons to be against the death penalty. It's a moral choice. I think revenge is a valid reason because I believe committing some acts forfeits one's right to live. One's basis for determining what type of punishments are acceptable for the state to perform should be separate from being upset that innocents get convicted of crimes. That's a problem we should strive to resolve (even if perfection is impossible) regardless of the punishments being handed out.

I am not sure how one separates acceptable punishments from their risks and consequences.Someone please tell me how to make a justice system where innocents are not at risk from false imprisonment/execution and I'll listen to it's merits of why we should execute the guilty. So far anarchy is the only system that comes to mind that fits the bill.

 

[Charlie Frown]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

It's not just because a few innocents get killed, although that is clearly significant (perhaps even the driver) it's also because it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't bring back the victims, it doesn't heal those have been hurt (vengeance will never fill the hole that comes from the loss of a loved one) and, most importantly, it doesn't make the general public any safer.It's bloodlust. Some are fine with that, although I think those numbers would diminish if the public could watch executions.

Didn't public hangings use to be popular events?