I’m not for the death penalty, but I at least want the guilty to be punished, (none of this being released after a few years on what was supposed to be a life sentence without the possibilty of parole, unless of course the ACLU intervenes and gets them out after 6 months.)
In short (actually, in long) they should be left to rot in prison, where they can live out their miserable lives to die of old age.
In both cases, people who support them handwave away the killing of innocent people as unimportant.
A person on death row is generally someone who is poor, male and dark skinned, who was defended by an incompetent lawyer. It doesn’t have much to do with being “a clear and present danger to society”; and keeping them in prison isn’t allowing them to “remain in that society”
Keep them in prison. That works just fine; we don’t execute people for safety, but simply because we enjoy killing.
And by your own logic we should execute people who support the death penalty, since they pose a danger to society with their lack of concern over killing the innocent.
For those who say that executing the innocent will be inevitable: would YOU be willling to be that innocent person?
Or would they even be willing to accept being the spouse of a victim raped and murdered by the guy that got away with the murder for which the innocent person was executed? How can you not appreciate the lack of justice served there?
While I support the idea of the death penalty, I’m opposed to its return to Canada because I don’t want to see our justice system fucked up in the same way the American system is. I have an idea or two for a very limited death penalty system that might work to remove some very deserving people from the Earth, but I have to acknowledge that some of my fellow Canadians will work tirelessly to oppose me on some kinda “moral” basis or something wacky like that so why bother?
Of course they wouldn’t; they just know that they WOULDN’T be one of the innocent people who would be executed, so they don’t care. The people for whom this is an actual concern and reality of daily life instead of some abstract thing that happens to other people they don’t even know never have this attitude.
Orbiting this whole debate, I still do believe in the death penalty. Like some who follow jesus without question and can’t (not won’t) expound, I bow out of this subject.
Here’s my idea - anyone convicted of taking a life in anything other than an accident or a crime of passion, after an independent investigation to establish the trial’s legitimacy, they immediately lose all human rights and at the first opportunity they are dropped by parachute near a remote Pacific island and left to fend for themselves.
If they are going to be killed with the state’s blessing, let it be at the hands of their own kind, or via shark’s teeth.
In America we execute the poor. The rich(O.J.) are above the law. The downtrodden, poor who can not afford good lawyers get the death penalty. It is a barbaric leftover from ancient times and unevolved cultures. It is a shame that we can not elevate ourselves. I look for the best in America and have great difficulty finding it. We jail and execute out citizens at a rate that rest of the world can not understand. Some 3rd world countries show the same disrespect for life we do. But the civilized countries try to move past medieval practices.
I do support the death penalty but believe it is not handled well in this country.
Any chance of you pointing to a country where they have got it right?
No, I’m not. Even if there existed a fail-safe method of determining guilt and propensity to recommit, no. The government (and/or the people) should not have that right.
And there is NOT a fail-safe method…there is no doubt innocent people have been executed in the past and many others barely escaped the fate.
Just recently saw the documentary “A Thin Blue Line” again, with my son. Just one story of an innocent man on death row (but one who happened to be spared largely as a result of the film made about his case).
Even if the indivual is guilty, the death penalty simply lowers us to the level of the killer, and does nothing to protect the sanctity of life or the public as opposed to humane confinement for the natural life-span. If we decriminalized drugs and released all non-violent drug offenders, we’d have MORE than enough space and resources to confine violent offenders indefinately.
Disappointingly, I haven’t seen any discussion of the recent SCOTUS rulings wrt capital punishment. Specifically, Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in the Davis case:
I’m relatively certain that what he’s saying is factually correct, but the ramifications of this position is that the U.S. Constitution allows innocent people to be executed. How appalling and how very much against the spirit of the very justice system. Why would a SC Justice feel it is right and proper to leave this apparent Constitutional dilemma unresolved?
Fortunately, the Court recognizes the folly of that:
Still, I was shocked and disgusted to hear a SC Justice suggest similar to what we’re hearing in in this thread: that executing innocent people is acceptable.
That was my point, in part. Although I’ll admit that some of these prisoners may be beyond rehabilitation so all you can really do is keep those types separate from the public until they die. But you can’t just kill them. How is that even considered a serious option? Revenge?
The only way I could see state executions having any chance of legitimacy at all would be in some extreme situation where there was somehow no other way to keep the convict separate from the public at large. Perhaps in certain wartime situations, as I believe has been mentioned upthread.
Not bad, but wouldn’t it be more satisfying to microwave their genitals for days until they died of shock? I mean, this is for us, right? Let’s get a little kick out it if we’re gonna do it? Added value, and all that.
Now wait a minute! Wait a minute!
I said executing innocent people would be unavoidable…but I didn’t mean KNOWINGLY executing innocent people. I mean that if you execute 1,000 people a few of them, unfortunately, and unknown to the state would have been innocent. I’m sure of the 2M people in jail or 1M or whatever a good many are innocent…and some may die of old age in jail even though they are innocent.
What Scalia may have said (not sure as I’m not a lawyer) is that if you’ve had the proper appeals and so forth, then that’s it. Even if after everything is said and done you can prove your innocent, tough luck.
I’m a little surprised at that…isn’t “new evidence” grounds for a “new appeal”?
I think there’s a fine line between the entertainment value to the populace and cruel and unusual punishment.
I wonder if feeding people to the lions would be cruel and unusual. Probably. Pay per view could make the state a lot of money.
That’s only if you consider the death penalty to BE said “top pillar”. LWOP can be that top pillar. Otherwise, what you advocate is NOT justice, but vengeance. That’s EXACTLY what I’m seeing from most people here. They don’t want justice. They want revenge.
Not in some states; in Texas for example I understand that there’s a time limit on new evidence. So if you are past the limit it doesn’t matter if someone shows up with a confession and a videotape of him committing the crime; they can and will execute the innocent guy anyway.
No, not revenge. If it was revenge they’d care about killing innocent people; they’d care about actually killing the person who committed the crime. But they don’t; they just want to kill someone, anyone. Innocence or guilty it doesn’t matter as long as someone dies.
This is about bloodlust, about cruelty; not revenge. Revenge would be a moral step up.
Executions pervert justice by eliminating any opportunity to correct mistakes. What could be more unjust than executing an innocent man?