Death Penalty

[Silverwingwyvren]

Sarcasm, but people really don't need to be racist, its not called for.

[Maiden]

I'm against the death penalty.

 

You'd think that would be a simple, straightforward enough answer, but it's not. At least, not for me. I want to tell you all why I think this. Of course.

 

First and foremost, the criminal justice system in America is completely defunct. I should know: I have an Associate's Degree in pre-law and I worked for a criminal defense attorney for several years. I've seen people who were totally guilty walk away from their charges because they could afford a great attorney. I've also been wrongfully accused of crimes in the past. (A long story, suffice to say I didn't do what that said I did.) It's terrifying to go through the justice system. Even if you are innocent, the District Attorney who prosecutes you and the Judge who reviews your case are so used to hearing guilty people plead their innocence that your pleas fall on deaf ears. For that kind of a system to have people's very lives in its hands is sick and wrong.

 

Second, there have been way too many cases of people being executed only to be found innocent after their death. Even if the percentage of posthumous reversals of the sentence is miniscule, it's too great. There's no way to be 100% certain that the individuals are guilty 100% of the time. When you're talking about someone's very life, that's simply unacceptable.

 

I agree with all the posters who've said that our jails are too comfortable. They're absolutely right. I've been to jail (Again, falsely accused!) and while it isn't nice, it isn't miserable either. I've been in apartments that were less desirable places to reside. Watch a documentary on prisons in Thailand or Mexico. Now those places are truly punishment.

 

Furthermore, I have no idea where slavery comes into this discussion. I mean, I read all the posts, but I'm not seeing it. Not sure...

 

Edited to add:

 

And as for my views on the death penalty? It shouldn't be given lightly, but I do agree that some criminals are just better off dead.

 

*coughcoughcaseyanthonycough*

Edited December 2, 2011 by MindsEye

[Lilithiana]

Death penalty should be for cases when you know 100 % it was him/her and for really hideous stuff. Like guys who raped 100 children or tortured people to death. There are sick persons who brag about what they did or get it tatooed! Thoses creatures should be finished off fast.

But if there is any doubt put the person on a normal long term death row.

[PlutoIsHades]

You are completely clueless aren't you? Most slaves were treated well because an abused slave can't work and if a slave can't work they aren't any use to their owner. A slave cost a great deal of money. Only an idiot would "punish" his slave.

 

Slaves did not "stand up for themselves." Some escaped with the help of other people but it wasn't punishment they were escaping from. It was incarceration which is what you would have murderers endure instead of a clean death. A country went to war over several issue with slavery being the cusp of those issues. That is how slavery ended in the US. Not slaves standing up for themselves.

 

Punishment doesn't work. My background is in psych. I lean toward the behaviorist school of thought instead of the psychoanalytical. I do know what I am talking about. You bring about the most effective change in behavior by removing whatever reinforces the behavior. Figure out what reinforces a murderer's behavior and extinction will change the behavior but I imagine you are going to be very hard pressed to identify that reinforcer and control it.

Read the chapter in A People's History of the United States about 1800's racial difference and slaves. Then I dare you to come back and make another argument on how slaves didn't try to fight back. There are pages and pages in that chapter about slave rebellion.

 

Slaves were NOT treated well, what are you talking about? They weren't completely abused, but they would be whipped if they did something very wrong. And they would run away from slavery, which basically was punishment, to me it seems like for having a different skin color.

[Fuzzbucket]

Not a fan. There have been too many innocent persons executed for the idea to sit well with me. Keep them alive, institutionalize them, study them so we can figure out how to keep them from happening again.

This.

 

And - how many here would be happy to be the executioner ? (I know there will be several - but think about actually DOING it.)

[Sir Barton]

Read the chapter in A People's History of the United States about 1800's racial difference and slaves. Then I dare you to come back and make another argument on how slaves didn't try to fight back. There are pages and pages in that chapter about slave rebellion.

 

Slaves were NOT treated well, what are you talking about? They weren't completely abused, but they would be whipped if they did something very wrong. And they would run away from slavery, which basically was punishment, to me it seems like for having a different skin color.

The only coverage anything gets is the sensationalism which people who were abused get. Their will always be cruel individuals but the majority of people who owned slaves could not afford to have a slave out of commission. It makes no sense to whip someone who's back is what you have to rely on to get in your crops to make the money you need to survive. That is common sense.

 

You apparently have never come across the stories of slaves who were treated as family. You apparently have never come across the stories of slaves who were released. No, not all slaves were well treated but most were. Slaves were extremely valuable. The majority of people then and now wouldn't abuse a horse or mule that they rely on and a slave was viewed no differently.

 

You may view slavery itself as a punishment but it for having a different color skin but I don't and please keep in mind that the majority of slaves were sold into slavery by revival tribes instead of falling into pit traps to be captured by Europeans. Much like a majority of intercity crime today, slavery was basically a black on black crime. Yes, whites kept the trade going but they did not start it. Cultural ignorance lead to the belief that Africans were not as intelligent as Europeans so they were viewed as animals; beast of burden. Is a draft animal at work considered an animal being punished? No. And that was the mentality of slave owners at the time.

 

Now, please don't offer up any more dares on this thread. If you want to continue to discuss this take it to PMs as I will state one last time; this thread is about the Death Penalty, not slavery. If you want to discuss slavery then start a new thread.

[philpot123]

Not sure how slavery came up, but I would suggest that you guys read the slave narratives, transcribed after the civil war to get a picture of what their life was like. Many of them say their lives were better before the civil war... whatever the case, it's an interesting read.

 

 

Oh, and Sir Barton, I'm aware Biblical arguments don't work against those not of my religion. wyvern identified as a Jehovah's witness, and said the death penalty is wrong, when the Bible clearly says it is right. I wasn't expecting to convince anyone else by spouting scripture

[Kestra15]

Biblical reference for death penalty: "Thou shall not kill." :|

This.

[CrippledCrow]

I'm not a fan either, but I've always wondered, what if we run out of room in jails?

[Fuzzbucket]

I'm not a fan either, but I've always wondered, what if we run out of room in jails?

There are far too many people in jail who should be doing some form of community service instead.

 

ALL the studies show that that is FAR more effective in preventing reoffending, and it also reduces the extra knowledge convicts get from others they meet in jail. Keep people in their communities, working for those communities and build up their pride in themselves and the places they live in. Let them meet their victims and see what they did, and realise the damage they caused. FAR more effective than locking them up to grouch with other disgruntled people who, like them, are learning NOTHING that will help them go straight when they get out.

[Maiden]

There are far too many people in jail who should be doing some form of community service instead.

 

ALL the studies show that that is FAR more effective in preventing reoffending, and it also reduces the extra knowledge convicts get from others they meet in jail. Keep people in their communities, working for those communities and build up their pride in themselves and the places they live in. Let them meet their victims and see what they did, and realise the damage they caused. FAR more effective than locking them up to grouch with other disgruntled people who, like them, are learning NOTHING that will help them go straight when they get out.

This. OMG THIS. Nonviolent offenders especially. It makes so much more sense for people to have to give a sort of restitution to the community which they've wronged.

 

Unfortunately, many people who are sentenced to community service fail to complete it and thus... wind up in jail. >.>

[Kelkelen]

There are far too many people in jail who should be doing some form of community service instead.

 

ALL the studies show that that is FAR more effective in preventing reoffending, and it also reduces the extra knowledge convicts get from others they meet in jail. Keep people in their communities, working for those communities and build up their pride in themselves and the places they live in. Let them meet their victims and see what they did, and realise the damage they caused. FAR more effective than locking them up to grouch with other disgruntled people who, like them, are learning NOTHING that will help them go straight when they get out.

Yes, yes, yes. If there were a "like" button, I would click it for this. The prison system is a failure in many respects, not the least of which is that when you isolate a criminal from society, you only affirm their attitude that they are justified in operating outside of society, rather than as a functional part of it.

 

Also, being in prison for a long time often means that a criminal has NO marketable skills upon release, and so has a very difficult time re-integrating into society, finding a job, building credit, and so on. Community service, on the other hand, might actually teach an ex-con some new and useful work skills.

[amerylis]

I am 100% against the death penelty

 

There is no point in the state saying do not murder and then engaging in murder itself, vigilante killings and crimes are illeagle in most places for a reason. i don't think we should go "oh you killed someone, well have a nice life" but revenge killing is never a good plan.

 

I personnally belive that prisons should go back to the basics required for human rights, like this picture and that prisoners should do work or study during their sentences. The death penelty isn't a detterent, but some prisoners can be rehabilited and can repeant and lead a normal life after that. Those that aren't safe to be released r have commited truely horrendous crimes should remain incarcerated for life.

 

 

[choco566]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Yes finally some one understands what I try and tell people!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Dude, its so dumb did you know the black guy they falsely exicuted in Atlanta was a Jehovah's Witness!!!!! How many Jehovah's Witnesses do you know that kill people??!??!?!!?!?

Yes, it is quite sad that those who are innocent end up paying the price. If they do end up keeping it, thorough examination of the supposed murder case should be made. I honestly don't feel that they overlooked that case well enough. I'm not saying he murdered someone, but you can't say a person is a murderer or not by their religion. :<

 

I just don't understand how the executor can't be called a murderer as well.

Edited December 3, 2011 by choco566

[TikindiDragon]

It looks like I may be the only Brit on here to say this... but I'm actualy for the death penalty. I'd rather like to see it reintroduced in the UK if I'm honest.

[olympe]

Fully support it !!!!!

 

Would make it a more speedy process, would like to have it in every state (and everywhere across the globe), and would make it an automatic punishment for certain crimes

I agree. Mostly. But with certain stipulations.

1. In order for someone to receive a death penalty, their guilt must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to avoid "collateral damage".
2. I'd also apply the death penalty to criminals who commit the same (or similar kinds of) crime time and again, even if the crime itself wouldn't warrant a death penalty the first time around. Crimes I'd definitely have on that list are all kinds of rape, especially of children (although that alone would warrant a death penalty the first time it happened, if you asked me).
3. Make the process a speedy one. Where's the sense in a death penalty if the convicted has to wait years, if not decades, for it to happen?
4. Despite my misgivings about that, I'd be all for making the death a quick and painless one, like putting down an animal.

Now, my reasons for this crass opinion: We seem to have a real problem with repeat offenders, especially when it comes to sexual offenses and GBH. What happens if someone is convicted? (At least here in Germany, that is...) The convict gets to stay a few years in prison, usually less than half a decade, and is let loose again, only to commit the same crime as soon as he gets the opportunity. (And, yes, the rate for repetition is especially high among those groups.) Quite often, this means another life is being ruined, and the criminal once again gets to sit in jail for a few years, maybe up to a decade, and gets loose again... Also, we have a system that takes into account each and every little psychological problem a criminal might have, making sure to decrease their sentence and assure they'll get therapy - on the state, of course. As you can easily imagine, the whole thing is costly, and does not help prevent any crimes at all. If, on the other hand, the sentence is a death sentence, you can be 100% sure that the culprit won't strike again.

[Princess Artemis]

Now, my reasons for this crass opinion: We seem to have a real problem with repeat offenders, especially when it comes to sexual offenses and GBH. What happens if someone is convicted? (At least here in Germany, that is...) The convict gets to stay a few years in prison, usually less than half a decade, and is let loose again, only to commit the same crime as soon as he gets the opportunity. (And, yes, the rate for repetition is especially high among those groups.) Quite often, this means another life is being ruined, and the criminal once again gets to sit in jail for a few years, maybe up to a decade, and gets loose again... Also, we have a system that takes into account each and every little psychological problem a criminal might have, making sure to decrease their sentence and assure they'll get therapy - on the state, of course. As you can easily imagine, the whole thing is costly, and does not help prevent any crimes at all. If, on the other hand, the sentence is a death sentence, you can be 100% sure that the culprit won't strike again.

This kind of BS happens in the US too. There's a pedophile out there I happen to have met that's been in and out of jail four times, and he keeps doing it. He comes up on the news every once in a while, and we find out he's once again predating on young girls. That man is incurable; whether he needs to die, I do not know, but he sure as hell does not need to be let out of jail ever again. He needs to be somewhere where the world's young girls can be kept safe from a known threat; he is only one man who cannot be stopped from hurting people. It grates on me to know he's out there getting cared for on the state's dime and time off for good behavior.

[Zovesta]

To be honest, I hate that "if you kill them you're just as bad as they are" crap. There's one hell of a difference between killing someone innocent and killing a murderer. If I could get by with it, I would kill people myself.

 

Just because I'm such a violent and angry person doesn't mean that I think everyone should be killed. No, no. Murder, rape, etc should be put away for life. If they get out, then they should get the death penalty. To me, the death penalty should be a last resort, but a resort nonetheless. Because I'm sick of seeing these people get out of prison and commit these horrible, horrible crimes. And I'm sick of seeing them do it in the first place, but we can't really stop that.

 

Yeah, if you take a life (not in self-defense), you've lost your right to your own. Sorry, dude. You should have seen it coming.

 

 

Edit: Also, yes, every single thing olypme said. <3 Thank you.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Zovesta

[JaziandCo]

I agree. Mostly. But with certain stipulations.

1. In order for someone to receive a death penalty, their guilt must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to avoid "collateral damage".
2. I'd also apply the death penalty to criminals who commit the same (or similar kinds of) crime time and again, even if the crime itself wouldn't warrant a death penalty the first time around. Crimes I'd definitely have on that list are all kinds of rape, especially of children (although that alone would warrant a death penalty the first time it happened, if you asked me).
3. Make the process a speedy one. Where's the sense in a death penalty if the convicted has to wait years, if not decades, for it to happen?
4. Despite my misgivings about that, I'd be all for making the death a quick and painless one, like putting down an animal.

Now, my reasons for this crass opinion: We seem to have a real problem with repeat offenders, especially when it comes to sexual offenses and GBH. What happens if someone is convicted? (At least here in Germany, that is...) The convict gets to stay a few years in prison, usually less than half a decade, and is let loose again, only to commit the same crime as soon as he gets the opportunity. (And, yes, the rate for repetition is especially high among those groups.) Quite often, this means another life is being ruined, and the criminal once again gets to sit in jail for a few years, maybe up to a decade, and gets loose again... Also, we have a system that takes into account each and every little psychological problem a criminal might have, making sure to decrease their sentence and assure they'll get therapy - on the state, of course. As you can easily imagine, the whole thing is costly, and does not help prevent any crimes at all. If, on the other hand, the sentence is a death sentence, you can be 100% sure that the culprit won't strike again.

Completely agreed. Rape and child abuse should be a capital crime. Modern jail is way too expensive, as is modern death penalty. And modern jail is way too comfortable. People are far less likely to commit crimes when they are legitimately afraid of the outcome.

 

Non-violent offenders need to either be put in a separate facility or have something else done with them aside from throwing them in the same places as murderers and rapists. That's teaching the prisoner how to be violent.

 

I'm wondering how many people who do not support the death penalty because "we should not kill" support war.

 

 

 

 

Re: Thou Shalt Not Kill. There are hundreds of references to proper punishments for certain crimes in the Bible being death, including being a reference to stoning a disobedient child.

 

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

King James Version (KJV)

 

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

 

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

 

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

 

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

 

It's assumed that this was not a common occurrence as if every disobedient child was stoned, there would be no more Jews. It does imply, however, that the son in this situation is doing more than a "No mommy I don't want to", but the Bible is not the place to quote for condemning the death penalty. Even "Those who live by the sword die by the sword" is simply taken to mean that if you kill, you will be killed.

 

Also, I thought everyone wanted separation of church and state? So we get upset when someone quotes "thou shalt not kill" in abortion topics but not here? ;3

[spyro76]

I'm not sure how much truth there is behind it, but I was told that the actual translation from the older versions of the Bible mean literally "Thou shalt not murder," not kill, which makes a world of difference, assuming it is true.

[JaziandCo]

I know it's something that's generally understood, though I'm not a scholar and I can't read the latin translations let alone the original text. Someone like Shiny should be able to say yes or no on that though.

[philpot123]

I'm not sure how much truth there is behind it, but I was told that the actual translation from the older versions of the Bible mean literally "Thou shalt not murder," not kill, which makes a world of difference, assuming it is true.

In context of the rest of the law, yes it would make more sense as thou shalt not MURDER, because there are concessions for the death penalty and lawful killing, such as in self defense.

[Crisis]

I support the death penalty for extreme crimes such a s rape, maurder, etc. But I think it should be different. I can't remember where they do this, but (wherever it is) what they do is they take the person who murdered someone and tie their hands and feet, and tie a large rock to theire feet, then throw them in a river. The family of the murdered person is given a knife and they have to make a choice. They can either let the murderer drown, or the can forgive him, swim down, and cut him free, saving his life. Their belief is that if they let him drown, they get revenge, but never find peace. But if they find it in them to forgive him, they'll find the peace and closure they need. Personally I think this is how it should be. We should plan to execut the murderer, but give the family a chance to save their life.

[Princess Artemis]

I support the death penalty for extreme crimes such a s rape, maurder, etc. But I think it should be different. I can't remember where they do this, but (wherever it is) what they do is they take the person who murdered someone and tie their hands and feet, and tie a large rock to theire feet, then throw them in a river. The family of the murdered person is given a knife and they have to make a choice. They can either let the murderer drown, or the can forgive him, swim down, and cut him free, saving his life. Their belief is that if they let him drown, they get revenge, but never find peace. But if they find it in them to forgive him, they'll find the peace and closure they need. Personally I think this is how it should be. We should plan to execut the murderer, but give the family a chance to save their life.

You don't think it's bad enough having a child raped to death, now all of society is going to expect you to Do The Right Thing and save the [insert word of choice]'s life?

 

Watch morning news shows sometimes. The second or third thing they ask families of victims of horrible crimes is if they forgive the killers. On national TV, some days after it happened. This society offers no one any privacy to mourn and condemns people for not being forgiving 30 seconds after it happened, what do you think society would do to victim families that allowed a criminal to die?

Edited December 4, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[Crisis]

You don't think it's bad enough having a child raped to death, now all of society is going to expect you to Do The Right Thing and save the [insert word of choice]'s life?

 

Watch morning news shows sometimes. The second or third thing they ask families of victims of horrible crimes is if they forgive the killers. On national TV, some days after it happened. This society offers no one any privacy to mourn and condemns people for not being forgiving 30 seconds after it happened, what do you think society would do to victim families that allowed a criminal to die?

I don't think it should be publicized. But like I said, I think it should be the families decision. If they want to let them die despite any publicity, that'd be their choice.