Death Penalty

Should punishment by death penalty remain active in the United States, or should it be abolished?

Eliminate it. It’s unfairly applied, hugely expensive, and accomplishes nothing of use; if anything it increases the murder rate slightly. We’ve demonstrated as a society an inability to implement it in a way that isn’t highly unjust.

I dunno, it’s a bid deterrent. Think about all those people who are about to commit a murder who don’t because they pause to think about what sort of a sentence a court would pass against them. Yup, pretty sure that’s how it works.

But it doesn’t. There’s no evidence it deters murder; what evidence there is, is that it encourages murder.

I don’t think it has to be eliminated to fix the cost problem. A simple bullet in the back of the head will fix that. I am so sure that would work that I would gladly pay for bullets out of my own pocket to put a good 100 pieces of garbage to rest, maybe even more (if this were to seriously happen) to do my part in cleaning up the planet.
If anything keeping someone alive for x amount of years is more expensive (or am I missing something?).

To assure that whatever crimes those people (100 percent proven guilty of course) committed will never ever happen again to any one else seems like a pretty useful accomplishment to me.

This nonsense again. It’s the expense of discovering if they are actually guilty that costs so much, not the actual execution. Especially since death penalty trials tend to be so badly done, with incompetent lawyers, bad evidence and obvious corruption & prejudice, that there’s an immense amount of room for appeals.

The same can be accomplished by keeping them in prison for far less money and effort.

I no longer care whether or not it’s kept. I find the idea of life without parole kept in solitary but for 1 hour a day in a cell with a concrete bed to be utterly horrific, and as such I don’t think we need to be so cruel and unusual as to actually execute someone when we can sentence them to endless isolation for the remainder of their lives. Were it me I’d be begging for a bullet in a few days.

You mean like the whole trial and circus stuff BEFORE the death penalty is anywhere close to being enacted? That’s a problem with the court system and not the death penalty, you may as well not lock people up for fear of putting the wrong person in jail period. I understand that it’s not easy to determine who is guilty of what in most cases and in those cases, yeah the death penalty shouldn’t be considered. But in a case where you can’t lie your way of what happened and you KNOW what happened happened then go for it. For example Jeffrey Dahmer, how much did it cost to realize he was the one guilty of the atrocities that occurred in his apartment/home whatever?. I mean he provided all the evidence out of his own pocket, it just needed to be cleaned up. That’s the type of scenario I’m talking about.

And for some crazy reason I feel like keeping a guy like that in prison costs more than not paying for his prison lifestyle.

So, you’re saying that with people who are really obviously guilty, we don’t need to bother with a trial?

Okay, I can get behind that. Now, how do we determine which plaintiffs are really obviously guilty? I figure we’d need some sort of authority figure to review the case. And someone would have to present the evidence to him that he’s really obviously guilty. We should probably also have someone there to argue that it’s not as obvious as all that, just to prevent someone abusing the system to get rid of someone they don’t like.

That does seem a lot more efficient than holding a trial, doesn’t it?

No; in death penalty cases that’s typically a joke. It’s about some authorities who want look Tough on Crime or persecute some minority they hate, so they pick someone who seems easy to convict, and railroad the guy with little regard to whether or not he’s guilty and with the most incompetent defense attorney available. They don’t care if he’s found not guilty in appeals or is actually guilty or not; they just want that initial conviction so they can look Tough or punish their favored target.

If we imagine a conversation 100 years from now, which is more likely: surprise ( and maybe derision) that we considered abolishing, or surprise ( and maybe derision) that we hadnot yet?

Option 3: “What would you want to go and execute people for? Them’s good eatin’ !”

In a theoretical sense, I don’t have an ethical problem with society having a death penalty… if society is willing to lock people up in jail cells for decades, we should be willing to kill them also, at least as far as how “mean” it is is concerned.

So the big issue, of course, is that you can’t let someone out of dead if it turns out that you were wrong. So I’d support a system in which the death penalty can only be applied to someone who has been convicted of two entirely separate capital crimes, as the chances of someone truly innocent having been wrongly convicted of two entirely unrelated crimes is sufficiently vanishingly small as to be acceptable to me.
All of that said, there are sufficient practical real-world issues with how it’s applied in the US today that I would be perfectly satisfied if it were abolished.

In China, the court cases don’t last long and you don’t really get time to appeal if you get death there… and its doesn’t cost a fuck heaps… but that wouldn’t work in any western nations

That’s where I’m at on the issue. A death penalty is just and morally right, but the application should be held to a standard that our system, as configured, seems incapable of delivering.

That’s a sensible approach, or some sort of death-penalty-only, extra-stringent appeal process. I’m open to ideas to make it work, until then, I’m fine with shelving it.

I believe that, but like I said it’s a court system problem. So I do see the sense in avoiding the death penalty since the court system is TOTALLY jacked in real life and we don’t know who’s guilty of what. So, I’m guessing if your issue is with the death penalty and nothing else then even in a hypothetical world where verdicts were reliable then you still would see no case that may warrant it’s use?.

If it were only that way.

AFA deterrence goes, did not pickpockets work the crowds that attended the hangings of pickpockets?

I believe the death penalty should be done away with. I don’t have a problem with executing murderers, but I don’t believe the benefit (which I’m not sure extends past providing closure to the victims’ families) outweighs the risk of executing an innocent person. I don’t believe it’s a deterrent- I think pretty much all killers either kill “in the heat of the moment” (and therefore are not thinking about the consequences) or plan to get away with it- and the only ones left may be the ones who want to be shot by cops or some other similar ending. So I would support ending the death penalty.

There is no such thing.

The death penalty would be immoral even if there was such certainty about the guilt of the defendent, but it’s even worse because there isn’t.