Yes, I'm in favour of Capital Punishment!

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by PG1995, Sep 23, 2011.

  1. PG1995

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Apr 15, 2011
    753
    5
    Todays one of the news line was saying death penalty is not justice, it's revenge. Perhaps, it's not exactly justice but it's neither altogether revenge. It's a fear to keep the society in healthy state. Where no matter what happens one knows that he/she is not kill some other humans and if it does happen, then possibly death penality awaits you unless you have some lawyer which really knows how to manipulate legal system. To keep the human society from falling apart 'fear tactic' is the most effective measure which is applied in many other areas such as if you are speeding you would be fined. What's your take on this? Please let me hear. Thank you.
     
  2. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    3,373
    1,157
    The recidivism rate for those executed is extremely low.
     
  3. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    2,428
    1,328
    I have been thinking about this a lot lately, whether I agree with it or not. I am not sure I agree with capital punishment. I definitely support a punishment of life in prison with no chance of parole, but killing is killing. I don't think the government should have any more right to kill someone than other people do, even if he or she has killed someone already. I can see why some people support it, but personally, I don't.
    Der Strom
     
  4. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    I think Capital Punishment is way overused (this from the #1 state with the death row express lane). I do not think is should be used as punishment. The only good reason for it is to prevent some other innocent person being killed, be it a civilian, prison guard, or even another inmate. I think the standard of evidence should be absolute (which it isn't), and at the first hint of mistake in evidence commute it to life without parole.

    But if there is a really sick person (and insanity should not be a defense, as it is not a punishment) who WILL kill again, then give them a painless and quick end before they kill again. I'm not sure who the sicko came up with the lethal injections we use, like I said, quick and painless, same as what I did for my old dog when his time was up.
     
    DerStrom8 and PG1995 like this.
  5. PatM

    Active Member

    Dec 31, 2010
    81
    72
    As I see it, a life term with no way to shorten the sentence is a better punishment.
    The Oklahoma City bomber did what he wanted and was terminated.
    What that did was relieve him of his punishment.
    He should have had to sit in a solitary cell for the rest of his life and think about what he did.
     
    Zazoo, PG1995 and DerStrom8 like this.
  6. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    Again, to me it boils down to will they kill again? I don't have an opinion with Tim, but is getting revenge worth someone else's life?
     
  7. #12

    Expert

    Nov 30, 2010
    16,248
    6,745
    Personally, I am not afraid of my own death. I would prefer that to being locked in a small place with really horrible people for the rest of my life. That would be revenge!

    I have met some really horible people, the kind that would leave death penalty opponents in a state of shock. I think they speak from ignorance. Some people really are a waste of oxygen, let alone the price of keeping them housed and fed for decades. Better to put them out of their misery.
     
    shortbus likes this.
  8. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,159
    Yes, in some cases.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/23/texas-execution-ends-final-meal?newsfeed=true
     
  9. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    Whether or not it is right or wrong is a difficult question. I'm not even sure I can answer whether or not I'm in favor of it. But, I feel strongly about one thing. The death penalty should not be decided as part of the normal trial process typical of what we see in the USA. To me, the standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is too low a standard for the death penalty, because there is no way to take it back if a person is later found innocent.

    There is a local case where I live, in which a police officer was convicted of murder and was put in jail with a very long sentence. This man's son played football with my son, and I alway felt bad that the son lived with that shame. Still, I always believed his father was guilty. Then 5 years into his sentence, a man came forward and confessed to the crime. The cop was completely exonerated and released from prison. Let's not talk about the losses of wife and job and time with son etc etc. At least his life was not taken away, and he made a return to productive life.

    My view is that, if a death penalty is to be given, it should be decided with a completely separate type of trial, reserved only for those found guilty of murder by normal trial and sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole. Then a jury decides with a new standard, namely "guilty beyond ANY doubt". I would be much more comfortable with this type of system.
     
    strantor, Wendy, PG1995 and 1 other person like this.
  10. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,159
  11. PG1995

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Apr 15, 2011
    753
    5
    If you don't mind, would you please tell me who this "Tim" is? I have checked the names of all the participants in the thread and no one is named so.

    Thanks.:)
     
  12. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    The problem I see with this is that the sentencing phase assumes that the verdict of "guilty" is valid. The possibility that the defendent might be innocent does not factored in at all. Various standards are applied to determine if the person is a suitable candidate for execution, but the standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a movable bar.

    What I'm saying is that the bar should be moved (my opinion, of course) and a new standard should be in place before we kill. I don't accept that we may kill an innocent person needlessly. Note that I say "we" because all local citizens are part of the process in some way, even if only as tax payers. In my local example of my son's friend's father, imagine how our community would have felt if the real killer came forward and we all had to face the fact that we killed a police officer, father, husband and productive citizen by mistake?
     
  13. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    The Oklahoma City bomber was Timothy McVeigh. I'm not sure if he met my personal standard for the death penalty, but if he didn't he sure came close. A lot of good people died because of this wacko and his crazed political agenda. He actually thought he was going to start the second American revolution with this deed, the deaths of the men, women, and especially children were inconsequential. After all, their parents were evil employees of the federal government.

    When people start ranting about our government and how evil it is I think of Tim. There may indeed be evil people in our government who commit excesses, but most of them are basically you and me.

    I agree the Death Penalty standard should be "absolutely no doubt", and if doubt is found after the fact the sentence communed. This is not even close to the American standard though, DA's are generally more worried about their political careers than killing an innocent person, which is obscene IMO.

    It goes towards it being punishment or prevention.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  14. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,159
    I don't accept that it's needless. We accept that innocents might be killed in everything we do that's important. We know that some innocent people will die from prescription drugs, driving cars, flying airplanes and of course war. I can grant that the death penalty has no net effect on crime reduction but it does have positive effect on most of the general population knowing that one less P.O.S. is on this earth breathing air. If the ratio of innocents killed by mistake is much higher than the other risks of innocent deaths then I would wonder if it was worth the risk. With the current advances in DNA and other forensic technologies the risk of being wrongly executed has dropped by a huge amount in the last 10 years with most of the cases in the news being pre-DNA/advanced forensics.
     
  15. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    Exactly, and the new DNA tests applied to old cases are now revealing just how many people were wrongly accused, jailed and even executed in the past, which should make us all pause and question our methods.

    DNA evidence, when properly applied and interpreted, can form one extra measure of protection to make verdicts to the standard of "guilty beyond any doubt", and enable executions that both make you sleep better because there are less POS's is on the earth, and let me sleep better because we're not executing innocent people.

    I'd also prefer streamlining the process after the secondary trial that determines guilt beyond all doubt. Instead of all the appeals and stays of execution and calls to the Governor, perform the execution as soon as possible with no allowed mechanisms to delay the process. That type of cold-blooded action becomes much more reasonable once you are absolutely sure that the person is guilty.
     
  16. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    The name for that philosophy is kill them all and let God sort them out, a major hallmark of most totalitarian governments. I would like to think the USA is better than that. In theory it is stated that 9 guilty men go free rather than one innocent convicted. Add the death penalty to that and it becomes much darker in dimension, and the USA hasn't been doing to well. This from someone who supports the death penalty, I just feel it is important to get the right ones instead of spray and pray.

    Follow the news you will find case after case where the DA refuses to review a case that has had significant new evidence come out. Rick Perry shut down a commission investigating how arson is investigated because an innocent man was executed under his watch. The results were released for the most part anyhow because a lot of other people really didn't want to repeat those mistakes and he waited until two weeks before the report was due.

    Texas is leading the way in reviewing evidence, I don't have the hard numbers but something in the neighborhood of 15 men have been release due to new evidence, several of them on death row. Now and then you get a DA who is worth his salary.
     
  17. strantor

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 3, 2010
    4,302
    1,988
    At first I liked steveb's answer, until I gave it some more thought. I have no moral qualms about killing "without a doubt" guilty people. but then what do we do with the "without a reasonable doubt" guilty people? if someone is found guilty of murder "beyond a reasonable doubt", but in the same the same court cannot be found guilty "beyond any doubt", do we just let them go? I mean, hey, they were just found guilty of murder. Or do we lock them up for the rest of their life? if so, then in some people's mind, (mine, for one) that's just as bad or worse than executing them. I think the "beyond any doubt" arguement would only be a measure to alleviate the conscience of the one behind the kill switch. I think keeping people (correctly or wrongly convicted) alive for decades, feeding and clothing them with no chance of ever being a benefit to society is a pointless endeavor. It's no good for the taxpayers, and no good for the convict.
     
  18. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    Perhaps, but you can free and offer restitution for someone wrongfully convicted who is still alive. Not so easy if you've killed them. Somehow "opps" just doesn't seem to cover it.
     
  19. strantor

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 3, 2010
    4,302
    1,988
    What kind of restitution is adequate when you've been in prison for 15 years, your kids grew up hating you, your wife remarried, and your parents have died and you weren't there. You haven't had a job in 15 years, so you're going to have to start over at burger king and try to explain away the gap in employment. Some would prefer death to that. "oops" doesn't make that go away, just like it doesn't make a wrongful execution go away.
     
    PG1995 likes this.
  20. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    Perhaps you would rather die than go through that, but I suspect that is not true of everyone. You would be vindicated to your kids, your wife, well, people go through divorces all the time. And if you haven't noticed, most of these guys are released with hundreds of thousands of dollars, in really bad cases it can be millions if the DA and police screw up badly enough.

    Does it make up for the misery? Nope, but at least you're alive to be miserable, with a chance for improvements. Dead people don't have any options. Killing people also covers up those embarrassing mistakes and lets the incompetent repeat them on other innocents.
     
Loading...