death penalty

[coolman]

this has been kind of started on the big washington sniper post, but i think it needs more development.

some say kill him, others say don't. (btw has it been confirmed that he is the killer yet? he hasn't been charged with murder, only firearms offences of something) either way, when he is found guilty, do we kill him or let him live? is death the easy way out compared with life in jail, which is, in my opinion, slow and painful rather than quick and easy. any thoughts?

 

[red indian]

When it comes down to it.........

........how many of us could really do it? actually administer the death sentance ourselves? I would agree that if these guys ARE guilty, as it seems they are, that they should not live, but when I ask myself if I could really do the job myself, pull the trigger, press the button, give the injection or what ever, I really doubt I could do it, but sitting here at my puter in my house, I can say very easily and glibly that yes they should face the death sentance with out question.


"Compare and contrast" please, essays on my desk by monday week.

 

[ForgottenTcklr]

I don't really have a problem with the death penalty. I think that our system supporting it is terrible, but as far as the actual death is concerned I have no arguements. I see it as a means to keep my own friends and family safe. I know that I don't want to see a murderer get off on Parole and then come kill someone I love. Looking at it like this I guess is selfish, but it gives me the means necessary to support... and ever pull the trigger myself if I had to!

 

[amk714]

Coolman, thank you for bringing up this touchy but important subject. I am in the minority; I oppose the death penalty. I have no problem seeing murderers like the Washington sniper dead, but the main problem I have with capital punishment is that innocent people can be wrongly executed under it. In fact, there have been numerous instances of those who were put on death row that did not commit the crime they were convicted of and were later exonerated. I somewhat agree with coolman in that I think life in prison WITHOUT parole is just as harsh a sentence, if not more so. As always, this is all just my opinion, so I COULD be wrong (but I don't think I am).

 

[BigJim]

the main problem I have with capital punishment is that innocent people can be wrongly executed under it. In fact, there have been numerous instances of those who were put on death row that did not commit the crime they were convicted of and were later exonerated.

Your current President could tell you a bunch about that one! As Governor of Texas he dropped more people than the other 42 states with the death penalty combined! A lot of them had holes in their cases, but got found guilty anyway, (shades of Louise Woodward) and a few have I think, since been exonerated. (I don't know the details, but one of you will know more about that me I'm sure.)

The thought of a murderer going through the trapdooe doesn't upset me, but when you think about it death is inevitable for all of us. I think a more suiting way to punish this shit, would be for the judge to sentence him to death by old age: prisoner to be held in a maximum security sweat hole until the Almighty ses fit to carry out the sentence. I get more of a feeling of justice by making his/their life/lives a living catalogue of misery and deprevation for the next 50 or 60 years, than I do from giving them the easy way out.


I have to agree with Alex on the quality of a lot of convictions. Many people have been sent to the chair or whatever for no other reason than the jurors were idiots, or the judge was leant on for political reasons. (Derek Bentley being a prime example!)

 

[BigJim]

Your current President could tell you a bunch about that one! As Governor of Texas he dropped more people than the other 42 states with the death penalty combined! A lot of them had holes in their cases, but got found guilty anyway, (shades of Louise Woodward) and a few have I think, since been exonerated. (I don't know the details, but one of you will know more about that me I'm sure.)

The thought of a murderer going through the trapdooe doesn't upset me, but when you think about it death is inevitable for all of us. I think a more suiting way to punish this shit, would be for the judge to sentence him to death by old age: prisoner to be held in a maximum security sweat hole until the Almighty ses fit to carry out the sentence. I get more of a feeling of justice by making his/their life/lives a living catalogue of misery and deprevation for the next 50 or 60 years, than I do from giving them the easy way out.


I have to agree with Alex on the quality of a lot of convictions. Many people have been sent to the chair or whatever for no other reason than the jurors were idiots, or the judge was leant on for political reasons. (Derek Bentley being a prime example!)

P.S. On an interesting historical note, the last time we had a thread on this subject Talons told me to keep my nose out of American affairs and to see if my government could correct all it's mistakes in Ireland before I started critiscising America. Anyone agree with that?

 

[Krokus]

heh.

I cannot believe that some people are even THINKING ABOUT IT!! OF COURSE HE NEEDS TO DIE! As a matter of fact, after what this guy has done, I would pay a pretty big amount of money to see him die.

 

[giggleygirl25]

i'm not sure if i would want the responsibility of injecting this a**wipe...my thought is that yes he does deserve to die, but by doing it so quickly...its giving him exactly what he wants...i honestly think he wanted to go out in a big way...get into a shootout with the cops,but i think that making him live out a few hundred year sentences without parole would be a better deal for everyone

 

[hawkikim]

Well, over the years I've vacillated on this question and I have no problem seeing both sides of the fence. But, ultimately, I come down on the anti-death penalty side. I don't really think that it's a deterrent...if it were, it would naturally seem to be that there would be a lot fewer capital crimes committed in Texas than the rest of the country, given how many folks have been executed there(or does Texas just have a higher per capita ratio of capital offenders?)

IMHO, there is too great a margin for human error. Too many cases are tried & convicted in the media before they ever hit a courtroom. Richard Jewell is one that comes to mind.

Maybe when it is certain that an innocent person will not be executed, I will vacillate the other way. But for now, I'll stick with Voltaire. "It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one" (Zadig, chapter 6, 1747) And before you dismiss that statement as so much "liberal" hogwash, imagine yourself as the one accused.

The previous statements reflect only my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Kimmie

 

[amk714]

I don't really think that it's a deterrent

IMHO, there is too great a margin for human error.

"It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one" (Zadig, chapter 6, 1747)

It's not, Kimmie! The majority of death penalty states have murder rates that are higher than non-death penalty states. To see more, check this out:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html

Humans make mistakes. There's no getting away from that. As one of my professors said, "I'd rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent one die."

 

[Neutron]

I Could..

Do it in a heart beat. Just give me the switch, noose, rifle, knife or whatever. I have no problem with removing a cancer from society. In fact I believe the US doesn't have enough crimes which get the death penalty.

Tron

 

[korovan]

I support the death penalty: I believe it removes a threat from society in a sure and final manner. Inmates imprisoned 'for life' are all to often released.

I believe I could perform the execution myself. I am not sure: I have never killed. But I believe so.

I do believe it is better to spare a guilty man than kill an innocent one... but I doubt the ratio on death row is 1:1. I guess I believe it is better to kill one innocent man than to spare ten guilty ones...

Just to clarify a point another poster made, George W. Bush has never sentenced anyone to a judicial death penalty in any court of law: he has never been a judge. His sole involvements in the many executions that took place in Texas during his time as Governor were his decisions not to issue stays of execution or pardons to the felons.

 

[JoBelle]

There is a very scary moment in life when you realize that somehting you always held true is totally shaken and you analyze every aspect trying to figure out how that happened. How could my convictions be changed so "easily."

I don't think a murderer should be housed and medicated while the children of a dead mother or father struggles through life. I don't think any husband whose wife was brutally raped and stabbed to death wants to think the man who did it is getting three squares a day as he looks at the empty place in the bed where his wife used to sleep. Do not even get me started on men who rape and murder little girls and boys who have yet to even understand death. How do you justify letting that person continue to breathe?? I'd personally pull the lever...yes, there you have it. I would do it. I dare any person to defend a baby killer and have a shred of self respect left in their body! As far as the "sniper," let's remember he shot a child. A little 13 year old boy who's crime in life was going to school.

To me, it's just so wrong.

On the opposing side of what Kim said, I think it's awful that one has to contemplate this but....I bet there are innocent people in the world who would say, "Yes, I'm willing to follow the system even though I'm innocent if it keep one monster off the street."

Like I've said in the past, our thoughts on such are very personal. I have reasons for believing the way I do. Maybe one day, I'll think differently, but it would take the hand of God coming from heaven to hold me close and tell me why I need to change my thoughts.

For me, I WAS anti-death penalty and that changed. Who's to say that won't swing back the other direction? Not I, but for now I think it is an appropriate result of someone who has taken another life. Am I God? No. Am I somehow thinking myself qualified to say another life should be snuffed out? No. But...I still feel that when someone has willfully ended the life of another person, the trade off should be his or her own. Why?

Well, until the moment they gave up the life of another, I hold anyone with the same respect due to the living. At the point another dies, I suddenly find myself in the place of the family and friends who lost someone they loved. The murderer is no longer of equal value. If they wanted so badly to end a life, they should have chosen their OWN!

Joby

 

[Strelnikov]

I'll amplify a bit on Joby's post.

The problem I have with the death penalty is that it takes too long and costs too much to carry it out. Most of those sentenced to die richly deserve it, as do many who escape it.

There are some people with whom I don't want to share my air. Child molesters are high on that list, whether or not they kill their victim, because pedophiles never "reform." Better they should ride the lightning. As long as they're breathing, there's a possibility that they'll get out. That makes them a mortal danger to my child, and everyone else's child as well.

There's no doubt in my mind that the death penalty CAN be an effective deterrent... IF it's carried out quickly, without fail, on all who deserve it. If you doubt that, ask yourself why citizens are reluctant to cooperate with the authorities when the Mafia is involved.

As for executing "innocents"... In this state, the death penalty is applied only to those convicted of Capital Murder. That is, murder while committing another felony, or murder of a child, or murder for gain, or multiple murders. Honest citizens don't commit Capital Murder - goblins do. Fry the wrong goblin, and it's no great loss to society.

Could I throw the switch? Yup. And I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Strelnikov

 

[BigJim]

Just to clarify a point another poster made, George W. Bush has never sentenced anyone to a judicial death penalty in any court of law: he has never been a judge. His sole involvements in the many executions that took place in Texas during his time as Governor were his decisions not to issue stays of execution or pardons to the felons.

I'm aware of that K, that wasn't my point. I'm fully aware that Dubya has never been a high-court judge. As Governer of Texas, stays and pardons often came to him for review on the occurance of further evidences coming to light and witness testimonies being discredited. He failed to act on way too many occasions when there was a whole truckload more than "reasonable doubt". The man just didn't give a shit so long as he was seen to be efficient and he hasn't changed attitudes since he changed jobs. Courts and trials in America (and to a certain degree in England) are the laughing stock of the world on a lot of occasions. Cases with more holes than a fishing net have resulted in extremely unsafe convictions and subsequent executions.

 

[omega]

I have heard one preacher say that for murder the death penalty is a must. The reason is that in murder the victim is dead and cannot accuse the murderer here on earth. So we need to send the murderer to God where the victim can accuse them before the highest court in the universe.

On the other hand there is another preacher, the pope, who is against the death penality because he says that it removes all chances for the murderer to truly repent.

Here's my problem. I agree with both opinions.

 

[BigJim]

There is a very scary moment in life when you realize that somehting you always held true is totally shaken and you analyze every aspect trying to figure out how that happened. How could my convictions be changed so "easily."

I don't think a murderer should be housed and medicated while the children of a dead mother or father struggles through life. I don't think any husband whose wife was brutally raped and stabbed to death wants to think the man who did it is getting three squares a day as he looks at the empty place in the bed where his wife used to sleep. Do not even get me started on men who rape and murder little girls and boys who have yet to even understand death. How do you justify letting that person continue to breathe?? I'd personally pull the lever...yes, there you have it. I would do it. I dare any person to defend a baby killer and have a shred of self respect left in their body!

Something Korovan said struck a chord with me. I do think that life sentences are paroled way too often. Life Without Parole must be spread wider and made more often. I know I'd like to see it introduced here in the UK. People only get life without parole if the judge or Home Secretary reccomends it here and even then, it's too often overturned by evil creatures like Myra Hindley.

To reply to Joby's point above; would I shed a tear if someone like this sniper, Myra Hindley or Thomas Hamilton got hung? Nope. Would I feel guilty if I got to pull the lever to send them through the crashing wooden trapdoor myself? Almost certainly not. Would I re-introduce the death penalty in the UK if I had the choice? Perversely enough, no I would'nt. Confused? Read on.........

There is too much manipulation and sheer incompetence in our legal system. Too many innocent people like Derek Bentley (the man who's conviction got the death penalty banned here) slip through the safety net.

People who commit what I like to call damnable crimes are paedophiles, (whether they kill the child or not, I don't give a shit. Paedophillia is evil!) multiple murderers, people who kill during the process of committing a crime like robbery.....etc. I'm sure you get my drift. All murder is bad, but this sort of crime is ESPECIALLY bad. To these people I would give the following punishment. Life without parole straigh off. No excuses, no exceptions. You live to a 105 having been a model and reformed prisoner for sixty years? Tough shit, you're not getting paroled! As Joby said, when these people commit their crimes, their lives should be forfeit in return. But why waste them? Have that life without parole filled up with menial labour for no or minimal recompense. The lowest, most menial and degrading jobs in society could be undertaken by people who have been made slaves for want of a better word. Work em till they're bent and twisted and then feed them on slop at the end of the day. No reason why we should waste good money on giving them anything other than what they need to fuel their body for the next day's labour.

Everyone dies in the end. Why not take advantage of these evil people and work them to death while they're still living? At least then when an innocent person gets convicted and is later to be found not guilty, they can be compensated in some way. You can't return all those lost years maybe, but you can at least partially make reccompense for it.

That brings me to another point Joby made? Why should relatives of a victim struggle through life when the perpetrator has housing, food and medication for life? Good point! Like our medical system that doesn't give a shite about health and only treats sickness, our judiciary doesn't give a shit about victims, only criminals. Show of hands how many people think this should change? *starting to count*1...2...3... *much later* 999,999...1,000,000! Just about everyone within earshot then? If anyone around here is considering writing a letter to their MP or local Congressman, then this might be a good thing to bring up.

WHY DO DECENT PEOPLE GET IGNORED WHEN THE BASTARDS WHO HARM THEM GET LOOKED AFTER?

 

[BigJim]

I have heard one preacher say that for murder the death penalty is a must. The reason is that in murder the victim is dead and cannot accuse the murderer here on earth. So we need to send the murderer to God where the victim can accuse them before the highest court in the universe.

On the other hand there is another preacher, the pope, who is against the death penality because he says that it removes all chances for the murderer to truly repent.

Here's my problem. I agree with both opinions.

Hmmm. Regarding the first opinion, time doesn't make any difference. That highest court will judge everyone in the end for all their deeds, even if they live for 50 years after they committed a murder. There is no escaping it and one might suggest that to throw someone into God's court before the Lord has called them in his own good time, might be insulting to Him. If you think God should be the judge(you as in the third person padre, not you personally), then he should also be the bailiff who calls the defendant too.

The second one is also quite interesting. When someone does something bad, they have to attone for it sooner or later. No-one escapes their own judgement. If they don't do it in this life, they'll have to do it in the next. Which is more preferable? To get rid of the murderer from our midst and send them on to burden the next generation as they sort their negativie deeds out, or to take advantage of the labour they could provide be making them do hard labour and giving them a chance to at least partially attone in this life? What do you think padre? I know you're split on both opinions, but does what I've just said make any difference to yours?

 

[Haltickling]

I realize that there are two basic opinions about death penalty: The cons have problems to believe that the cops do always find the right culprit, and to trust in the judicial system to prove the crime WITHOUT DOUBT. The pros say: Kill them anyway, no one gets convicted if he’s innocent; they further express the fear if a real murderer continues to live, he will kill again, and they stress the ‘justice in vengeance’ aspect.

I think I’d approve of the death penalty IF (a very big if!) our judicial system could make sure that no innocents get convicted. Sadly, that’s not the case, there are too many examples for rather doubtful convictions, some of them have even been proven wrong in courts, afterwards, too late. And how would you explain the obvious disparity between black and white convicts? Are Afro-Americans so much more dangerous? As long as cops and judges are mere humans, we have every reason to believe that tragic mistakes can happen. There’s no such thing like ‘One Law for All’ as long as there are noticeable discrepancies of social status in any society.

That’s the very reason why most other Western nations have abolished the death penalty. For example, it’s a crucial condition for all members of the EU. Turkey had to foreswear the death penalty in their preparations to join the EU. Almost all of them still have it in case of wartimes, but it’s a major no-no during peace.

And most Europeans wonder why a Western nation like USA who places so much importance on Christian values still executes people. What happened to “Thou shalt not kill?” Doesn’t the Bible say “The vengeance is mine, spoke the Lord”? The Old Testament sentence “an eye for an eye” was clearly contradicted by the sermons of Jesus, if I’m not terribly mistaken!

I agree that we should care more about the victims of crime than we do presently, and place their human rights before the murderer’s. I agree that the cops need to shoot hostage-holders or kidnappers to rescue the innocent victims. I would approve of much more severe penalties in jail. Those criminals should work their asses off to pay for their living. But I certainly don’t agree to kill in the name of God or any human justice!

 

[amk714]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Hal. You're one eloquent pacifist.

Here are five reasons to oppose the death penalty:

http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/fiveRs.html

It's not that long, and a lot of people will disagree, but it's worth reading, IMHO.

 

[BigJim]

I agree that we should care more about the victims of crime than we do presently, and place their human rights before the murderer’s. I agree that the cops need to shoot hostage-holders or kidnappers to rescue the innocent victims. I would approve of much more severe penalties in jail. Those criminals should work their asses off to pay for their living. But I certainly don’t agree to kill in the name of God or any human justice!

I agree with all of that, more or less. Jail sentences and penalties once you're in jail are WAY too soft. On the other hand, I don't believe that executing someone benefits any country, group or individual for the right reasons. America has the death penalty in 43 (I think) of it's 50 states and it has the highest murder rate of the developed world. Good deterrant? Texas has one of the highest murder rates of any of the 43 states and yet more people have been slotted there than anywhere else in the union!

----------------- NO-ONE WHO IS AN ATHEIST SHOULD READ THE NEXT PASSAGE. IT WILL PROBABLY BORE AND IRRITATE YOU!!! -----------------------

Now let's move on to another side of the debate. Very few people here have the "this world is all there is and when you're dead, you're dead!" attitude. Most of us believe in there being more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies. Some of us are like to me to a lesser extent, believing in reincarnation, paying for your sins through karma and benefitting from your good deeds too. More are like the padre and Joby, more or less in a Christian philosophy with God being the ultimate judge in the cosmos. Whichever way you look at it, human beings live forever. A soul thrown into the flames of hell, or bumbling around from low powered life to low powered life because they can't resolve their negative issues is a waste of God's Holy Spirit. Executing someone delays the time when they could come to te point where they're as good as anyone else. That point might not be in this lifetime, but letting them live whilst earning some good points by being fed slop and working themselves into an early grave, is one road to it.

If you think that vengeance should be part of the law, then you can get more satisfaction out of knowing that someone is going to suffer abject misery for 40 or 50 years, doing menial work for the state and wishing they'd die, than giving them a moments discomfort as the needle slips into their arm or the chair sparks up, before passing into oblivion.

Paying for your crimes is all about suffering until you've burnt off all the hate, anger and misery you caused others. If your life is ended prematurely, then you've just been passed on to the next bunch of suckers, who'll have to cope with you next time.

 

[BigJim]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Hal. You're one eloquent pacifist.

Here are five reasons to oppose the death penalty:

http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/fiveRs.html

It's not that long, and a lot of people will disagree, but it's worth reading, IMHO.

That was quite a touching thing to read Alex and it highlighted something that I forgot to mention earlier. Crimes happen 90-odd% of the time because of poverty and boredom. There is a saying that goes....."When you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got". When people in all countries start taking the violence out of their societies and replacing it with love and respect, even if it has to be love and respect for people who done evil things, then crime will diminish. People keep saying "What an awful thing just happened. What are THEY gonna do about it???" People give away responsibility for the state of affairs in the country, community/world to a few people who really could'nt give a shit about the common people's problems, so long as they get their brown envelopes and all expenses paid trips to the Bahamas. Poverty doesn't always mean lack of money. A place that is full of money but no love will always be worse off than a community with little money and lots of love.

People don't relise it, but they can change the world themselves, without having to ask any governments, congressmen or MP's to do it for them. Let's face it, politicians have had centuries to sort the bloody world out and all it's done is gotten worse. If every member of every community took back the power that is theirs to totally transform the world and most importantly USED it, then crime, poverty and violence would wither.

 

[amk714]

----------------- NO-ONE WHO IS AN ATHEIST SHOULD READ THE NEXT PASSAGE. IT WILL PROBABLY BORE AND IRRITATE YOU!!! -------------------
----

If you think that vengeance should be part of the law, then you can get more satisfaction out of knowing that someone is going to suffer abject misery for 40 or 50 years, doing menial work for the state and wishing they'd die, than giving them a moments discomfort as the needle slips into their arm or the chair sparks up, before passing into oblivion.

Paying for your crimes is all about suffering until you've burnt off all the hate, anger and misery you caused others. If your life is ended prematurely, then you've just been passed on to the next bunch of suckers, who'll have to cope with you next time.

To the contrary, mate. I found your commentary interesting and right on the money (except for the stuff about reincarnation). Killing won't bring anyone back, so make them pay for the rest of their lives. And yes, I am an atheist. Yet another reason to disagree with me! Thanks for your support, Jim.

P.S. I hope we're not hijacking this thread.

 

[BigJim]

To the contrary, mate. I found your commentary interesting and right on the money (except for the stuff about reincarnation). Killing won't bring anyone back, so make them pay for the rest of their lives. And yes, I am an atheist. Yet another reason to disagree with me! Thanks for your support, Jim.

P.S. I hope we're not hijacking this thread.

Just out of interest, does your atheism mean that you think we're born, live and then die, with no before and after?

 

[amk714]

Just out of interest, does your atheism mean that you think we're born, live and then die, with no before and after?

Yes, it does. Maybe you want to start a new thread?