-
-
- I see in many threads that people who oppose the death penalty do so for the reason that “it doesn’t prevent crime”. I’d guess that with recent gov’t data on concealed handgun permits, that’s wrong both in principle and in practice, but it’s misguided argument anyway.
-
- I support the death penalty because I see it as a method of permanently protecting the rest of society from someone who has a severe lack of respect for other’s lives. There do exist serious questions about how evenly it is applied (in the US, anyway), but that is a matter of practice, not of principle. Committing non-violent crime I might understand, maybe even violent crime in some circumstances, but I don’t care two shits about rehabilitating people who commit intentional murders; I’d rather know they are dead and gone than worry about them escaping and walking down my street. -And I’m going to skip the relative luxuriousness of US prisons entirely here.
Has the death penalty’s actual purpose ever been stated by the Supreme court or any other legal authority?
There is no correlation between using the death penalty and a decrease in murder. None, nada, zip. Want to know what has a correlation with the murder rate I’ll tell you. The poverty rate. To reduce the muder rate it would be much more effective to use the extra money that the death penalty incurs and use it to reduce the the poverty rate. For every person you send to death row you could use that money and send 5 people to college. Increase their economic potential and decreasing the poverty rate. The death penalty serves no purpose other than a sick biblical need for revenge. Do you really think a gang banger is afraid of the death penalty. They kill each other in the streets. Lets look at some other situations. A guy walks into a convenience store to rob it gets nervous and kills 5 customers and the clerk. If he wasn’t poor he wouldn’t be holding the place up in the first place. Another propblem with the death penalty is that innocent people are sent to death row. So not only are you not deterring the crime but your killing innocent people. But it sure does give the victim’s families a nice warm fuzzy fealing inside.
The death penalty is the ultimate in “do as I say, not as I do”. The law says that murder is bad and most of us agree with that. What I don’t understand is how the government can then go and kill people. The double standard is mind boggling.
I remember a few years ago that the Supreme Court said that states did not need to listen to death penalty appeals, even if new evidence of innocence could be brought to light. Fortunately, this seems to be changing in many cases, thanks to DNA testing. Illinois did the right thing by putting a moratorium on executions once they realized that they were faced with the possibility that innocent people could be put to death. Hopefully Texas will get that message at some point.
The death penalty exits to appease the victims. If a thug murders your parent, spouse, or child you will probably want him put to death to satisfy your bloodlust. On this principle, I support the death penalty, but the cost of executing prisoners is getting too high, and on that principle I’m beginning to doubt the need for the death penalty.
If the rules and regulations for executing prisoners were changed to allow Fast Track Executions (i.e., the prisoner is dead in under six months) there might, just maybe, be a discernable decline in violent crimes.
So then, how do we get protection from a government which has a severe lack of respect for others’ lives?
-
fast track execution? hmmm wonder how that might fly in Illinois, where they cant even handle normal track executions. Gov Ryan put a temporary moratorium on executions because of the number of prisoners on death row found to be innocent YEARS after the fact. I guess if folks think that killing a few innocents is the price we pay…well what can I say/
-
Death penalty is rarely considered a deterrent in most of the applicable crimes. Most murders are crimes of passion (usually by family or friends), where deterrence or thinking about consequences does not enter the equation.
And I went up there, I said, “Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL.” And I started jumpin up and down yelling, “KILL, KILL,” and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, “KILL, KILL.” And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, “You’re our boy.”
Joe Malik, you’re quickly becoming my favorite new poster.
In an absolute, abstract ethical sense, I believe capital punishment is certainly justified.
HOWEVER
I don’t support it for the following reasons:
-
It is not a detterrant to crime. If you’re fucked up enough to commit a murder, you don’t care about the consequences, regardless of the “degree” of the crime. (BTW, MC, what do concealed carry permits have to do with this, anyway?)
-
One of the founding principles of the US is that guilt must always be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Whenever new evidence arises, there is doubt and that evidence needs to be considered. We’ve already heard about DNA samples vindicating people who have been executed. What happens when the next forensic technology vindicates the guy who got executed today? I see the posibility of one person being wrongly executed as a justification for abolition of capital punishment. Human life is too important to be 99.9% sure.
**
Prison is the ultimate in “do as I say, not as I do.” The law says that kidnapping is bad and most of us agree with that. What I don’t understand is how the government can then go and imprison people. The double standard is mind boggling.
Killing someone isn’t always murder and it isn’t always wrong.
Marc
Ditto Marc!
I second that. Bright guy.
That is doubtful. There is no constitutional way for a Governor to stop the death penalty (that I can think of) and I doubt the legistlature would do anything. Do you thinks their West Texas constituants care what happens to a handful of Houston gang bangers? Heck no – they would probably fry all the city folk if they could!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MGibson *
**
What the government does is not “kidnapping”
kid·nap (kdnp)
v. tr. kid·napped or kid·naped, kid·nap·ping or kid·nap·ing, kid·naps or kid·naps.
To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. (source: dictionary.com)
the key word being “unlawfull” of course…much like the courts ruled that the INS did not kidnap Elian G.
If that’s the game you want to play, no problem.
What the government does is not “murder.”
murder
n. the unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.
source is dictionary.com
The key word here is unlawful of course. Much like the execution of Karla Fay Tucker in Texas was lawful and therefore not murder.
The arguement that it is hypocritical of the government to outlaw murder and then execute criminals is just silly. There are other valid reasons why one might be against the death penalty.
Marc
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MGibson *
**
Well thanks…but of course “I” never accused the government of murder, so don’t put words in my mouth.
“You” DID accuse the government of kidnapping.
Murder is a legal concept. So I don’t think abortionists murder (at least in the U.S.), nor does the state murder…rather it “kills” when it executes
Why isn’t banishment a considered option for the undesirables of our nation?
It worked for the Brits: they dumped their unwanted off on some faraway colony and let them be.
Boom, two hundred years later, the scum of the earth are hosting the Olympics and have given the world Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe. Who’s complaining?
Take a deserted island in the south Pacific, formerly used for nuke testing, drop off a bunch of criminals, give them challenges every other day, and make them decide which to send back to the States. We could even have Jeff Probst there to host. 
Okay, I got carried away at the end there, but seriously, why not banishment?
Ok, MGibson, there is a very simply difference between kidnapping someone and murdering someone, whether the state does it, or civilians do it.
Murder-take a way a life, killing, can’t be undone.
Kidnap-detaining someone, keeping them for ransom, person can return to normal life.
So, if I am wrongly imprisoned, there stands a chance that I will be released one day, justice will be served.
But if I am wrongly imprisoned, and then killed, then what? “Oops, we made a mistake. Better luck next time.”
That’s the difference.
One involves taking a life, one does not.
-
-
- Banishment? Banishment to where? Neptune?
-
-
-
- What justification can there be to allow a proven violent murderer to live? Does his desire to murder outweigh everyone else’s desire to not be murdered? It would seem that to form a society, individuals must surrender certain individual freedoms, one of them being the right to kill other people indiscriminately. - MC
-
Actually I think murder should be legalized. Wouldn’t that be fun. Some pisses you off, bang. But then by killing someone you’ve probly pissed someone else off, bang. Now your dead. Soon all violent people would be dead. 
“proven murderer”? Do you realize how many “proven murderers” were innocent, but were killed anyway? The justice system is ran by human beings, imperfect, stupid, sloppy human beings. Mistakes are made, and sometimes they are deadly. Are you willing to be the mistake? In order to keep the death penalty, are you willing to be the innocent man who is fried? Because, it COULD happen.
And I don’t know if you noticed this or not, but we have prisons. If you stick someone in prison for a few consecutive lifetimes w/o chance for parole, they are going to be there until they die, or until new evidence surfaces that clears their name. Either way, society wins. And the murderers are not allowed to kill again.