Death Penalty

[Stealth_Potato]

@jtgain

I understand that a longer wait time may prove someone innocent of the crime, but the wait time destroys any effectiveness of the penalty. Either 3 months and done, or no death penalty at all. How we do it today is absurd.

It is absurd, but really, it’s never been a deterrent anyway, so the length of time between conviction and execution is just a question of expense. And the fundamental problem is that the stupendous cost of sentencing a person to death and then following the long, long road to carrying out the sentence cannot be decreased justly.

Are there people who deserve death? Yes. Are there some criminals who are so broken, so irredeemable that they are beyond rehabilitation, even if our prison system were not so backwards and self-defeating, so that we’d all be better off if they were just dead? Totes. But even with all our expense and drawn-out process of today, we still occasionally execute innocent people. It’s not worth it. Vengeance as punishment doesn’t help society anyway; is it really worth giving a person their just deserts if it does no good for the rest of us?

As much as the occasional person may deserve it, the death penalty should be done away with.

And I think the suggestion that life-sentence prisoners be allowed to choose death is interesting. Interesting, but probably a bad idea for all the reasons Great Antibob mentioned, plus the remote possibility of abuse. Best leave it well enough alone.

[Peter_Morris]

@Stealth_Potato

It is absurd, but really, it’s never been a deterrent anyway …

Just for clarification, this is poorly stated, and often “misunderstood” by DP supporters, either accidentally or intentionally.

Correctly stated, the risk of a long prison sentence, and the risk of the death penalty are equally effective at deterrence. That is, the DP is no better deterrent than prison.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

There’s no reason to keep it. Most death row inmates will never actually be executed anyway, so even leaving the moral considerations aside, it should be junked as totally ineffective.

[Der_Trihs]

@Peter_Morris

Correctly stated, the risk of a long prison sentence, and the risk of the death penalty are equally effective at deterrence. That is, the DP is no better deterrent than prison.

A long prison sentence is far more likely to be actually imposed, is more likely to be imposed on the actual guilty party, it doesn’t validate killing as a means to an end, and possibly most importantly is more likely to be imposed on rational, intelligent criminals who actually worry about consequences. So I see no reason to presume an equivalence between their effects.

[Blaster_Master]

Issues with the court system aside for a moment, I think it logically follows that the death penalty is the only just penalty in some cases. Unfortunately, most arguments for or against it end up being about revenge, cost, uncertainty and all of that. But really, whether or not it is just doesn’t really get at the heart of the issue as we should be approaching it. The question shouldn’t be whether or not it’s just, the question should be whether justice, recognizing the faults and costs of the system, is worth the cost to maintain it.

In short, justice is a virtue that most societies value, but at times one virtue will conflict with other virtues that society values, and when those conflicts arise, we have to decide which virtue we value more. Every society wants to say that it values justice, but even in our legal system, we make exceptions to something as simple as the death penalty. Someone who kills another in commission of a crime is likely to get the death penalty in my state, whereas someone who kills his wife’s lover upon discovering suddenly does not. In a truly just society, both of those ought to have the same penalty, they both willfully ended the life of another person not in self defense, but we don’t punish that way. We don’t because we have a level of compassion and understanding for someone in the latter situation that we don’t for the former.

The odd part is, there are situations where I see people say “well, I don’t believe in the death penalty, but if anyone deserves it, this guy does”. Or, on the other side, what if we could theoretically take someone who justly deserves death, however you might define that, but could say with certainty that we could reform them and make them productive members of society and they wouldn’t kill anyone again? In the former case, maybe that’s a point where the death penalty makes sense, in the latter, maybe it isn’t.

I will say, though, the idea that it’s a harsher punishment to give someone life without parole and leave them isolated in a tiny cell 23.5 hours out of the day and it’s cheaper so it’s preferable to the death penalty is, frankly, repugnant.

[Human_Action]

@Blaster_Master

Someone who kills another in commission of a crime is likely to get the death penalty in my state, whereas someone who kills his wife’s lover upon discovering suddenly does not. In a truly just society, both of those ought to have the same penalty, they both willfully ended the life of another person not in self defense, but we don’t punish that way. We don’t because we have a level of compassion and understanding for someone in the latter situation that we don’t for the former.

I disagree with you strongly here, “true” justice requires factoring in intent and cirumstances, not an amoral calculus of act -> punishment. Justice is inseparable from moral rightness, and any moral code worth anything makes the sort of distinctions you mention.

@Blaster Master

The odd part is, there are situations where I see people say “well, I don’t believe in the death penalty, but if anyone deserves it, this guy does”.

Those people do, in fact, believe in the death penalty, whether they wish to admit it to themselves or not.

[DrCube]

@Blaster_Master

The odd part is, there are situations where I see people say “well, I don’t believe in the death penalty, but if anyone deserves it, this guy does”.

Plenty of people deserve to die for what they’ve done. That doesn’t mean the government should kill them. I’m not a big fan of wars and police shootouts, but those are at least ostensibly about defending others. When you’ve already got an unarmed guy in pajamas in a prison cell, it is simply not justifiable.

To take a person who is confined, subdued, and utterly under our control, and just murder them in cold blood? That’s not something I want any government to do, or even have the power to do.

[Fiendish_Astronaut]

@Der_Trihs

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

Wow, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was being sarcastic.

[huck]

My own morals and ethics dictate abolition of the death penalty, but there are many practical reasons (most already mentioned)why I feel very strongly that the death penalty should not be available.

I’m a trial lawyer (not a criminal lawyer) and I think that most of the time juries come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence presented–even when they decide against me.

But I don’t think that a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is good enough to end a person’s life. What the jury hears and how it’s presented depends on the quality and integrity of the lawyers on both sides and how the judge rules on evidentiary questions, as well as how truthful/good at lyign the witnesses are.

And that’s before you even get to the variables of sentencing, which are also in my view too variable to justify a decision to kill someone.

So even if the death penalty was an effective deterrent (and I don’t believe it is) I would be in favor of its abolition.

[Der_Trihs]

@Fiendish_Astronaut

Wow, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was being sarcastic.

Sorry. I’ve heard entirely too many people say that completely seriously.

[Clothahump]

@Anonymous User

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

Keep it and streamline it.

Add three more justices to the Supreme Court. At the beginning of the term, they draw lots and three of the twelve become a “Death Penalty Tribunal”, with the caveat that they cannot serve two times in a row.

If someone is given the death penalty in a state court, the case should be immediately appealed to the highest state appellate court. If the verdict stands up, the case is immediately appealed to the SCOTUS tribunal, bypassing the lower federal courts. If the tribunal upholds the verdict, execution occurs immediately.

The issue with the death penalty is the fact that it takes 15-20 years to carry out and that is just wrong on so many levels.

[Max_the_Immortal]

@Kearsen

I could get behind the abolishing of the death penalty, under some conditions: Prison needs to be work, sun up to sun down work, the food needs to be there only to provide sustenance, no flavor, As much water as you can drink will be provided of course. You receive no pay for your work.

After the amazing rehabilitation rate that my jails would have, we could then think about reducing the times we incarcerate people.

So you want someone (presumably whoever runs the prison) to get free labor (read: free money) from convicts? That won’t lead to an increase in wrongful convictions at all! Corruption never happens!

[Hottius_Maximus]

As far as whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent, I noticed that Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy haven’t murdered anybody since they’ve been executed so I guess that it’s deterring THEM. That being said, although I support the death penalty, I don’t like the way that it is currently conducted. I would agree to abolish it if a new penalty were enacted: DEATH IN PRISON. That is, upon conviction, from this day forward until the day you die, you will be locked up forever with NO VISITS from loved ones, NO TV, NO reading materials, NO contact with anyone except for the guards and the chaplains, NO weight rooms, NO computers, and NO creature comforts! You will live miserably from this day forward and you will NOT be released until you have departed this life. I would extend said penalty not only to murderers, but also to rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, terrorists (domestic OR foreign), and those convicted of particularly brutal assaults, and armed robbery. Parole would be ABOLISHED along with the death penalty. FYI----while my solution may be unusual it is NOT cruel in the sense that being alone in a small cell with no contact would cut down on the homosexual rape that regularly occurs in prison as well as the brawls and the assaults that regularly occur. My way is actually more humane but it STILL punishes offenders severely. Trouble is, the bleeding hearts that oppose the death penalty generally don’t care for my solution of Death In Prison either.

[storyteller0910]

@Hottius_Maximus

and those convicted of particularly brutal assaults, and armed robbery.

Really? Your solution for some kid who holds up a liquor store is to lock him away until he dies? Forever?

Yikes.

[Northern_Piper]

I think Hottius Maximus should change his user name to Draco..

[Hottius_Maximus]

@storyteller0910

Really? Your solution for some kid who holds up a liquor store is to lock him away until he dies? Forever?

Yikes.

If he uses a deadly weapon…YES! The proprietors of that liquor store or just the clerks who are trying to make an honest living are often murdered by such thugs who’ve robbed BEFORE but since they either didn’t caught or were put on probation now a law-abiding citizen is DEAD because said thug wasn’t locked up for good! Draconian? Maybe…but I bet Death In Prison would deter more people than either the death penalty OR the current situation.

[Human_Action]

@Hottius_Maximus

If he uses a deadly weapon…YES! The proprietors of that liquor store or just the clerks who are trying to make an honest living are often murdered by such thugs who’ve robbed BEFORE but since they either didn’t caught or were put on probation now a law-abiding citizen is DEAD because said thug wasn’t locked up for good! Draconian? Maybe…but I bet Death In Prison would deter more people than either the death penalty OR the current situation.

Few things:

1. What you’re describing is prior restraint, punishing someone for things they might do in the future. It’s unconstitutional and wrong.

2. Robbery isn’t the moral equivalent of murder, treating them the same way is a) wrong and b) provides a massive incentive to escalate robberies to murders. Why leave a witness if the penalty’s the same?

3. Deterrence isn’t the primary goal of the justice system, justice is.

[Lightnin]

@Northern_Piper

That is assuming a 100% accuracy rate in the trial process, which has been disproven by the number of wrongfully accused who have been released.

But you must admit the plan will cut down on the recidivism of innocent criminals.

[Freakenstein]

@Hottius_Maximus

As far as whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent, I noticed that Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy haven’t murdered anybody since they’ve been executed so I guess that it’s deterring THEM. That being said, although I support the death penalty, I don’t like the way that it is currently conducted. I would agree to abolish it if a new penalty were enacted: DEATH IN PRISON. That is, upon conviction, from this day forward until the day you die, you will be locked up forever with NO VISITS from loved ones, NO TV, NO reading materials, NO contact with anyone except for the guards and the chaplains, NO weight rooms, NO computers, and NO creature comforts! You will live miserably from this day forward and you will NOT be released until you have departed this life. I would extend said penalty not only to murderers, but also to rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, terrorists (domestic OR foreign), and those convicted of particularly brutal assaults, and armed robbery. Parole would be ABOLISHED along with the death penalty. FYI----while my solution may be unusual it is NOT cruel in the sense that being alone in a small cell with no contact would cut down on the homosexual rape that regularly occurs in prison as well as the brawls and the assaults that regularly occur. My way is actually more humane but it STILL punishes offenders severely. Trouble is, the bleeding hearts that oppose the death penalty generally don’t care for my solution of Death In Prison either.

Wow, I’d rather shoot every witness and approaching cop than surrender, if that is keeping Me from this punishment.

Also ( can’t cite, sorry ) I’ve read about some ‘mock trials’ that were conducted in a psychological study. To cut a long story short: Evidence is irrelevant if it’s not 100% sure, then they just use their eyes instead. If You’re attractive and smart, You’re off the hook. If You’re ugly and stupid, You’re going down.

[gigi]

@Human_Action

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.

What were your reasons why it’s morally right?