Three really good reasons to abolish the death penalty

[Shaenightbird]

The death penalty doesn't deter anything. No one is sure what will, but the death penalty has been instituted in quite a few American states, and people still commit capital crimes. It doesn't work.

 

[vxicepickxv]

1. It's open to hideous, terrible abuse. The death penalty is the tool of choice for oppressive political regimes and social movements. It's a handy way of quashing dissent and getting rid of people your society doesn't like for whatever reason. This is true in all countries that use it. Consider the United States: in Texas, people on death row are often there thanks to completely incompetent court-appointed defense lawyers with no experience in such cases (rather than the experienced public defenders that are vital in such a system) - and do I really need to mention the race issue? You can tell me all you like that your own government would never allow such a travesty to occur (or be perpetuated), but you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical.

2. A common argument for the death penalty is that it is an effective deterrent, because nobody wants to get executed. This is bullshit, because nobody commits a crime if they expect to get caught. The psychological evidence here is pretty clear - nobody is going to say "maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy" because they might get executed for it in fifteen years.

3. The death penalty is fundamentally incompatible with the fundamental assumption of Western criminal law, which is that it is worse to punish an innocent man than it is to let a guilty man go free. (This is why you are "innocent until proven guilty," and why you need to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" - if there's any doubt, you should be considered innocent in order to avoid any possibility of punishing an innocent person.) It stands to reason that this principle should be enforced especially rigorously the worse the punishment is. A death sentence is about as bad as a punishment gets. Despite this, even such enlightened societies as the United States have executed innocent men. Take the case of Leonel Torres Herrera, who was executed in 1993, despite the fact that he had evidence that could have seen him acquitted. We cannot take the risk of this happening even one more time.

So, let's have some reasoned, level, argumentative dialogue about this issue in here! Please, don't troll, flamebait, or otherwise be a prick.

4. It's cheaper for states to do life without parole than it is for the death penalty. I don't understand how it works, and it was reporter math, so it might be wrong.

 

[Mikaze]

Three really good reasons to KEEP the death penalty:
1) Murder (you kill someone, we'll kill you back)
2) Rapists/Child abusers/molestors
3) Chavs.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Mikaze]

2. A common argument for the death penalty is that it is an effective deterrent, because nobody wants to get executed. This is bullshit, because nobody commits a crime if they expect to get caught. The psychological evidence here is pretty clear - nobody is going to say "maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy" because they might get executed for it in fifteen years.

Let me ask you something, if the penalty for littering were a severe caning, do you think people would litter more or less than if say, the penalty were a $50 fine? Obviously less. Look at Singapore. Their justice system calls for public canings when somebody litters or vandalizes property, and I have never seen cleaner streets in my life. Harsher punishments must deter people from committing crimes. The very idea that they don't is ludicrous.

However in your example the criminal survives the experience, painful as it may be. They learn that if they fuck up it ends extremely painfully for them and they spread this knowledge.

The death penalty is different, if you commit a crime that warrants the death penalty there is no longer any reason not to re-offend while you have the chance since they're going to kill you anyway. Perhaps if the death penalty couldn't be enforced immediately but only on repeat offenders it might work.

 

[quiet_samurai]

OK, I need to be heading out pretty soon so I only went through and responded to the first page; I promise to get to the rest eventually. If I didn't respond to you, it's because you agree with me (and therefore we don't really have anything to discuss or debate) or because I can't take you seriously.

Three really good reasons to KEEP the death penalty:

1) Murder (you kill someone, we'll kill you back)
2) Rapists/Child abusers/molestors
3) Chavs.

All three above reasons are why we INTRODUCED it to begin with. Plus prison doesn't work for these idiots. Every person who murders in cold blood WILL re-offend, so far I've yet to hear about either a 1/2/3 who HASN'T re-offended.

As for 2, currently we only have the Death penalty for serial murderers and possible other extreme crimes. Not like a couple centuries ago where you got hanged for far less.

And as for number 3, thats why they have YEARS on death row. YEARS. To appeal and PROVE they are innocent with new evidence etc etc etc.

Personally, I'm all in favor of the death penalty, especially if theres a mountain of evidence against you and 3 or more credible witnesses.

You don't hear about people who don't re-offend because it's not news, it's just the system functioning properly. You don't hear news stories about people not getting swine flu for the same reason. If you're referring specifically to murder, the other reason you don't hear about rehabilitated convicts is because they spend the rest of their lives in prison or institutionalized.

I don't quite get what you're saying with your second point, maybe you could clarify for me? It doesn't matter how extreme the crime you're using the death penalty for is - it doesn't work as a deterrent for crimes like murder.

Yes, people have years on death row to appeal. No, this does not catch everyone - just ask Leonel Torres Hererra. It happened at least once, and almost certainly dozens of times in Texas alone. We cannot take the risk of it ever happening again.

Weeeeeelllllll....... I had a proper argument written about it, but it crashed, and im pissed off about it but here it goes.

I dont mean over crowding as kill of everyone, I mean as the ones who have zero chance of leaving that prison outside of a box.

Think about it, it would be cheaper to do, as they would dont have to feed them, if they use the lethal injection, its Humane and painless for them, no nasty consciounce on the executioners head, it was safe, and reletevley painless.

There, im not pro death, just defending my topics, and keeping peoples perspectives open.

Prison overcrowding is, to me, a separate issue - more related to drug policy, in my opinion. Either way, we cannot risk killing innocent people in order to prevent the comparatively trivial problem of prison overcrowding.

Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, it's more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.

Surely using that mentality, all it takes is one wrongly accused innocent person to be sent to jail to render the whole law as broken?

I'm pro capital punishment. It sends a message, loud and clear;
"Do not fuck with us"

I'm very much an eye-for-an-eye person, unfortunately here in England, troublemakers on any scale have more rights than those they victimise. And as such, I hate our government, it is weak and pathetic. And I'd very much rather I feared my governments threats of death then laugh at how they struggle to regulate such a tiny little country.

Indeed it does only take the jailing of a single innocent man to render the criminal justice system (not law) broken. That said, jailing an innocent man is a completely different beast from executing him.

Capital punishment may be sending a message, but that message is not being received. As has been exhaustively noted in this thread, the death penalty is not effective as a deterrent; doing it just to say "do not fuck with us" when burdened by this knowledge is therefore little more hardass posturing and infantile dickwaving.

I'm sure people who have had their loved ones brutally murdered would have a difference of opinion. Not sayin I'm one of those people, but just saying. Kind of a hazy line between revenge and retribution when it comes to stuff like that. Sometimes life without parole isn't enough.

If there is one principle the criminal justice system should not be based upon, it is revenge. "Justice" and "revenge" are far from synonymous.

I am for the death penalty, as I believe that certain crimes should be punishable by removing your defective genes from out pool. That being said, I think other things could be done with the people that should be put to death.

Cheap labor. Make the guys that fuck up, do things that need doing. A lot of people that get put in jail ARE skilled at one task or another. My parents used to tell me that people in jail made license plates. Not sure if that's true, but if it is, then good. They should also do things like repair government owned structures.
Got a statue that needs cleaning, or a park that needs a deliterizer? Call Asshat #23452 and make him clean that crap up.

A lot of these guys have it better IN jail than they did OUT of jail. Books, excercise, food, and even cable TV. Even the U.S. Military makes you pay for all of those, save exercise. So make them work. Hell, give them the choice! A- you work 6 days a week doing things for the city. B- We kill you. Pick one.

The only problem is that the government actually uses it as a way to get revenge on people... Which sucks.

I mean, if you're going to destroy their lives anyway, then you might as well kill them (not that I think that you should kill them).

If you live in the US of A: I feel bad for you. That whole system is pretty messed up, to quote Rage Against the Machine- "Some of those that work forces, are the same that burnt crosses."

The system isn't really that bad. It's infinately more helpful, than it is hurtful. That being said, everyone knows it's not perfect. Unless there's some high profile thing going on, "revenge" isn't really a reason people are put to death. Unless by "revenge", you mean "people who dicked up BAD and need to be dealt with."

Forced labor is pretty clearly unconstitutional both in the United States and other developed societies. That said, there's no reason that people who are in for life sentences can't be given the option to do labour during their sentences.

Which do you think is worse though, keeping someone against their will, for an entire decade, or killing them? Either way they've lost their life because if a fault of someone else. You can't say "oh, it's only 10 years". That's a long f'n time to be kept away from society, and then to just be pushed out there one day, your record ruined, owning nothing in your life, having nothing to do. The world today changes too fast.

What's life in prison? 50 years? 10 is plenty to mess up your life for good. Especially if you didn't do anything wrong. Is it perfect? No. I would truely feel bad that an innocent person died, and the guilty got away. At some point though, you have to weigh things.

Yeah, putting innocent people in prison for 10 years is a pretty terrible deed - and that is why they are able to sue and reap millions of dollars in compensation. You do need to weigh things, and no matter what I am drawn to the conclusion that it is better to have the possibility of undoing some small part of the damage that you have done to the wronged innocent party, regardless of the circumstances.

I agree with the death penalty, just not the way the USA implements it. The only crime in my state that warrants the death penalty is aggravated first degree murder, although regular first & second degree are still in the same class of felony, they are not death penalty worthy. So saying that I think the death penalty should be decided by the victim's loved ones. Sounds like a huge burden, but I'm willing to bet most people who would be given that chance would take it seriously. Many people would see it as a form of retribution, but lets not kid ourselves, that's basically what it is in the end.

Also if execution is sentenced , whether by my proposed method or the one that is currently used, I think it should be carried out swiftly. Not the next day mind you, because I believe in appellation. But i think it's stupid that a person will sit in prison for 20 years wasting tax money only to be killed at the end of the road. Spending money on a condemned individual just seems pointless. I also don't see why it should cost a state a vast amount of money to carry it out when the cost of a bullet is only around 90 cents and does the job.

Someone above me said that it's not a deterrent, that's just bullshit. Maybe if they brought back public executions you would change your mind.

You really advocate condoning revenge killings? Is that really something that has a place in an enlightened, developed society?

And you don't need to take my word for the fact that it's not a deterrent - there are mountains of literature in criminology and psychology records.

Though it's hard to make a good argument for the death penalty I am for it
I'm a fan of eye for an eye justice

And why are you a fan of eye for an eye "justice"? Because it appeals to our most base and reprehensible urges? Because justice should be about instant gratification rather than improvement of society? Frankly, I don't think there are any defensible arguments in favor of eye-for-an-eye "justice."

Oh, we are far from enlightened. And barbarism is the natural human condition, if this is not true then why is it that every time and enlightened and developed society falls we immediately revert back to it. Civilization itself is against the rules of nature, we are just not willing to admit it.

 

[Chibz]

Three really good reasons to KEEP the death penalty:

1) Murder (you kill someone, we'll kill you back)
2) Rapists/Child abusers/molestors
3) Chavs.

All three above reasons are why we INTRODUCED it to begin with. Plus prison doesn't work for these idiots. Every person who murders in cold blood WILL re-offend, so far I've yet to hear about either a 1/2/3 who HASN'T re-offended.

As for 2, currently we only have the Death penalty for serial murderers and possible other extreme crimes. Not like a couple centuries ago where you got hanged for far less.

And as for number 3, thats why they have YEARS on death row. YEARS. To appeal and PROVE they are innocent with new evidence etc etc etc.

Personally, I'm all in favor of the death penalty, especially if theres a mountain of evidence against you and 3 or more credible witnesses.

Actually, murderers are statistically proven to be the LEAST likely to reoffend. While sex offenders are one of the more likely people.

Honestly, the sex offender list is a travesty. They are put on a list almost for life, for committing one crime. If even that. This list makes it very hard, if not impossible, for them to ever get a job or even make friends. Also, it's basically useless in stopping them from REOFFENDING. You give a guy almost nothing to do...

As for two, it's very much hypocritical for a nation to tout the evils of murder and then... murder. And no, I doubt trying to justify killing someone changes it from being murder.

 

[Kyouran]

Surely using that mentality, all it takes is one wrongly accused innocent person to be sent to jail to render the whole law as broken?

Maybe you're right, but it's much easier to apoligize to someone who's just spent the last 10 years in jail for no reason than it is to someone who's just been executed.

Which do you think is worse though, keeping someone against their will, for an entire decade, or killing them? Either way they've lost their life because if a fault of someone else. You can't say "oh, it's only 10 years". That's a long f'n time to be kept away from society, and then to just be pushed out there one day, your record ruined, owning nothing in your life, having nothing to do. The world today changes too fast.

What's life in prison? 50 years? 10 is plenty to mess up your life for good. Especially if you didn't do anything wrong. Is it perfect? No. I would truely feel bad that an innocent person died, and the guilty got away. At some point though, you have to weigh things.

See, this is a glaring symptom of the fallacy in opposing the death penalty because the legal system is less than perfect. It's irreversible? EVERY penalty is!

 

[Erana]

I'm all for the death penalty if the legal system is capable of handling such power.
I mean, if you're in prison till you die, your life is pretty much over in any meaningful way. Why not be merciful to the perpetrator and provide closure for the victims while saving tax dollars?

And rapists should be given harsh punishments. Not necessarily death, but I know far too many people who are negatively affected to this day by someone having violated them so cruelly.

 

[Frizzle]

Surely using that mentality, all it takes is one wrongly accused innocent person to be sent to jail to render the whole law as broken?

Maybe you're right, but it's much easier to apoligize to someone who's just spent the last 10 years in jail for no reason than it is to someone who's just been executed.

Which do you think is worse though, keeping someone against their will, for an entire decade, or killing them? Either way they've lost their life because if a fault of someone else. You can't say "oh, it's only 10 years". That's a long f'n time to be kept away from society, and then to just be pushed out there one day, your record ruined, owning nothing in your life, having nothing to do. The world today changes too fast.

What's life in prison? 50 years? 10 is plenty to mess up your life for good. Especially if you didn't do anything wrong. Is it perfect? No. I would truely feel bad that an innocent person died, and the guilty got away. At some point though, you have to weigh things.

See, this is a glaring symptom of the fallacy in opposing the death penalty because the legal system is less than perfect. It's irreversible? EVERY penalty is!

I'm assuming that you mean the death penalty is bad because it's not reversable?
It's true that all other forms of punishment by the legal system are reversable, yes. The arguement i'm making though, is that the effects aren't reversable. Just because someone got life in prison, and then was let out 10 years later doesn't mean that everything is all hunkey dorey (sp?).

10 years of life have been wasted there, thousands (if not millions) of dollars have been spent out of taxpayer money. The guy/girl who was incarcerated was stripped of 10 years of their life, and there is no way to compensate for that, no matter what you do. In my opinion, taking that chunk out of the middle of someone's life, is screwing them over for the rest of their life. Would I personally choose death over 10-20 years in prison? I'm not sure, but it doesn't make the wrongs done any less.

If I read your post wrong, I apologize.

 

[Tibike77]

I'm going to take the "evil" counter-standpoint to the OP's ussues and play devil's advocate with it.

"1. It's open to hideous, terrible abuse.
2. It's not an effective deterrent.
3. Breaks the ''Innocent until proven guilty'' idea of the justice system."

Hmm... so, you want to say the death punishment is a cluel and unusual punishment regardless of crime commited AND against the protect-the-possible-inocent idea ?
How about serious punishments that are being handed out on crimes you didn't even manage to do yet, but somehow are still guilty of ?
By that I mean, things like punishing people for putting stuff into their own bodies for some arbitrary reason even if that improves their quality of life, or for taking some risks, like, say, driving a little too fast or driving drunk ?
And that _regardless_ of whether they did anything wrong YET or not, but we go on a presumption of "guilty before even commiting the crime due to the fact you are very likely to commit the crime if in that particular state you put yourself into" ?

Following your very same logic, please explain to me why we even punish drunk driving or doing drugs AT ALL in the first place ?
It certainly can lead to horrible abuse, even if the person actually did nothing wrong !
It's not an effective deterrent at all, since, well, incidence of all of the above is on the rise, not on the decline.
And finally, you actually ARE punishing a guy that LITERALLY DID NOTHING WRONG YET except put himself into the position of being likely to commit an actual crime.

And finally, one extra pound of gasoline-soaked twigs on the fire is the newsflash that human life is not precious at all, and most of the people only PRETEND to care what happens to the 99.999997% or so of the rest of the people in the world outside their "monkeysphere". They fact they pretend the same thing to themselves in a very convincing manner doesn't really help the fact they really don't give a damn.
Next time you try to argue the death penalty is unfair, try explaining first WHY EXACTLY do we even have any OTHER punishment except the death penalty, and why don't we use it only on people that actually DID something wrong. And "something wrong" being limited to intentionally taking something that's not their own but some other person's, and physically (and directly) hurting another person against their will... and in both cases, only if the plaintiff presses charges (or the probable plaintiff is dead).

 

[Samurai Goomba]

The death penalty is also an abolishment of human rights. Even criminals have the bare minimum of rights, yet the death penalty destroys all these values and rights democracy is supposed to be based upon.

Nobody has rights. The "Right" to anything is just a word on a piece of paper which can be taken away from us or rewritten anytime the government feels like it. Right to life? Not if somebody kills you. Right to free speech? No, no you don't have that. There's some stuff you just can't say these days. Right to pursuit of happiness? Only because you can't KEEP somebody from "pursuing happiness" as long as they live. It's too vague to have any real authority. Right to privacy? Not since the Patriot Act. Right to liberty? Not if somebody enslaves you.

"Rights" aren't a magic shield that protect us from harm, so why bring up something that can't protect the innocent as an argument in favor of protecting the guilty?

In the practical sense, the only right you have is the right to do whatever you can get away with. The line is different in every culture. Expecting anything more than that is living in a fantasy world.

 

[Motti]

I'm not neccessarily for the death penalty, but it's much better than it used to be. People aren't nailed to trees simply for saying how much better the world would be if people were nice to each other for a change.

 

[Next Chewbacca]

I am against the death penalty.

I can't help but feel bad for people who have been executed and then found innocent and all the courts have to say for it is, "whoops, we'll do better next time."

When someone is put on death row they have at least another 10 or 15 years they are given several chances to appeal their case and prove their innocence. Even if they are exonerated, you can't give them back all that time that was forcefully spent in some place that resembles a human landfill.

Of course, I might be a bit biased on this issue since I attended a lecture by Randy Steidl who was convicted for a crime he didn't commit and spent 12 years on death row to show for it.
You can read about him here http://www.witnesstoinnocence.org/speaker_bio_steidl.html

Also I live in Nebraska and currently the method of death penalty is under legislation. The state is just now modernizing to lethal injection (I know, it's sad). Right now the bill is just sitting on the fence because the method of lethal injection is being debated as to whether it is humane or not. If it is determined to not be humane by the state then the death penalty will be removed.

 

[Stryc9]

Oh, we are far from enlightened. And barbarism is the natural human condition, if this is not true then why is it that every time and enlightened and developed society falls we immediately revert back to it. Civilization itself is against the rules of nature, we are just not willing to admit it.

Thank you! I love this statement.

Now on to the fun stuff.

In the U.S. right now it does indeed cost more to put someone to death than it does to keep them alive for the rest of their natural life. This is because we're doing it wrong. The dirtbags get far too many appeals and have too long to affect them.

I'm completely against the execution of innocent people so, you get one appeal, you have six months to get your crap together, you will be assigned a lawyer that will be working with you and you alone for those six months. If you can show reasonable doubt then you get a new trail Failing to show reasonable doubt, you will be put to death by the quickest and most humane way possible withing one week of your appeal, end of story.

Which means we'll building some new electric chairs. That's right folks, electric chairs, we can do better than they did in the early 1900's and deliver relatively painless current to the condemned with incredible quickness. The march of technology, isn't it great?

I know, I know some people are going to complain that people that get electrocuted suffer the humility of possibly catching on fire or having embarrassing accidents but do you really think that when they murdered their victims they gave them a dignified death? In 99.99% of murders HELL NO, they just killed them and left the bodies or gave them a hasty shallow burial, maybe put them in an empty oil drum or possibly buried them in concrete. Far from a dignified death if you ask me.

I'm a firm believer in the death penalty in certain select cases of murder, and most cases of rape and child molestation, maybe not necessarily as a deterrent but because done properly it gets the worst elements of society off the streets quickly and permanently and it would be cost effective without all of these bullshit appeals where we have to pay a whole team of lawyers to defend someone who has done truly despicable things.

Oh and the person that said Congress usually rules the death penalty unconstitutional try again, it's the Supreme Court that makes that ruling.

 

[hebdomad]

Exactly, many people think that jail is a way for the state to get revenge on it's criminals, I for one think it's first objective should be to rehabilitate and transform criminals into working members of society again.

Ok let me play devils advocate,

"Free education to criminals? I'll go shoot someone, then I don't have to pay for my education. You can't do that, your just encouraging crime! These people will find it near impossible to find a job anyway with a criminal record, so why bother? They are going to recommit anyway. Just lock these people up in labour camps and put them to some good while you have them."

/devils advocate

But yes, jail should be there to give criminals training to get a real job. It's just a method of how to go about it. Maybe force them to take out a loan to pay for there education. They will then pay the loan off as they work and will be on probation until the lone is paid off.

 

[Scythos]

the whole point of the law is not to deter people from committing crimes, but to protect those that dont. as it is, im fairly certain that if i went on a killing spree and killed everyone i hated, i would get barely any time in prison.

Actually that is the whole point of law and punishment, it works as a detterent and if by little time you mean life, then yes you would get little time in prison. You can go back to reading the express now.