Not quite quick enough my friend? 
You might also find the views of Bill O’Reilly from Fox News interesting:
http://www.foxnews.com/channel/oreilly/main.sml
Click on: “Bill Sounds Off on the Death Penalty”
A penalty is a training tool. When we were children, we lost privileges, got spanked, etc, but these penalties were enacted to train us. We needed to learn to live safely, and to respect the rights of other people.
If there is to be no possilibity of the convicted changing his or her ways, then no penalty is appropriate - a penalty would be simple sadism.
The death penalty is not a penalty - it is simply the removal from society of a person who, by their own actions have placed themselves outside the social contract, and demonstrated that they are a danger to society. Such people are not entitled to the continual support of society, and cannot be allowed access to it.
The problem with the current state of state executions is that the pre-conviction process is often found to be faulty. This is not the problem of the execution process, it is the problem of the judicial process. Once a person has been convicted by a just court of a murder, rape, treason (resulting in death) that person should be executed as humanely, cheaply, and quickly as possible.
But it’s not a penalty. It’s dangerous animal control.
**
What’s the point of these definitions? A murder victim has had his or her life taken from them. The murderer can never ever make restitutions.
Shame on me for thinking that any and all forms of mental illness do not excuse a persons actions. I accept that there are cases where someone is criminally insane and I certainly wouldn’t support their execution.
Marc
Good Lord I agree with Bill O’Reilly on an issue…thanks a lot Phil geeeeeeeez
The death penalty is a process that includes trial, appeals (court), appeals (governor) and execution. There are problems in the process all the way through (at times, the Supreme Court has found problems with the actual act of execution also). The death penalty is not the only option for dangerous animal control. I am opposed to the death penalty NOT out of compassion per se for the convicted (although, there are enough questionable convictions to be concerned about that aspect), but as another poster said…My opposition is to the societal response to horrible crimes. To be honest, if a close family member of mine was killed, a strong part of me would want that creep to be fried until he bled puss. But our system of justice is just that, a system of justice, not a system of revenge…thats why there is a judicial process, with the final determination of consequence being determined by someone other than the victim(s). That is what elevates us as a society above the assholes who perpetuate their violence.
I used to be in favour of capital punishment. I thought that there were people who were so vicious, they “need killing”.
But then I started seeing profiles on convicted killers. Many of them were sincerely sorry for what they had done. Some of them had committed murder under the influence of drungs and/or alcohol. Some of them were “simple”. Many or most of them had been on death row for a decade or longer. These are not the same people who were convicted. They had changed in prison. If prisons were about rehabilitation, I’d say that many of these prisoners were rehabilitated. I thought that they were unlikely to kill again. I thought that these people, convicted murderers, could be released into society without fear of their killing again. Is it “justice” to execute someone who has been so profoundly changed? If a person has been rehabilitated, is it even “justice” to keep them in prison for the rest of his life?
To be sure, and there have been examples in this thread, some people should never be released. I think that some people still need killing. But how can you execute some, and commute the sentences of others? Our justice system is moving toward “one size fits all”. Since we can’t seem to execute only the truly bad people, and since many murderers turn their lives around in prison and may no longer deserve to be executed, I have modified my views on capital punishment.
I think it’s better not to execute anyone and just keep them locked up.
It’s interesting that the “Evil Countries” of the world, Iran, Iraq, and China to name a few, have capital punishment; while “civilized” countries such as Canada, France and England (and Mexico, for that matter) do not. By holding on to capital punishment, we are making ourselves like Saddam and the Ayatollah rather than members of an international community.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. A good life, which can be helped along by good education, a good job, and an end to racism, is.
Putting on my Nomex (fire retardent) suit
You brought up restitution. I was talking about rehabilitation. I couldn’t figure out why you were talking about restituion in response to an argument about rehabilitation.
You know, I can give all the semantic arguments in the world about why I cannot support the death penalty. The high cost, the unfairness of the process, how minorities are on death row in numbers disproportionate to their population, and many other arguments expressed here and in other threads. When you get down to brass tacks, however, the basic reason is simple:
Killing is wrong.
No matter how many horror stories you throw my way you cannot sway me from that basic tenet. Killing is wrong, I don’t care who does it, and I cannot understand thinking that goes against this. If you trot out “eye for an eye” I’ll trot out “turn the other cheek”. To me, the idea of killing someone because s/he killed is akin to “Well, he did it first!” and I think that is childish to the nth degree.
On another note:
When those fuckwits down in Texas dragged that man to death behind their pickup truck my primal, gut reaction was to do the same to them. Revenge!! Let’s hang 'em high!
Then my rational thought processes kicked in, and I thought, “You know what would piss those racists off more than anything? Let’s lock them in a cell forever. Let them out for an hour a day for excercise. And books? Oh, you betcha. Let’s give them all the reading material they can handle. Of course let’s let them hang posters on their cell walls. Of course let’s let them listen to music in their cells. They can read the poetry of Maya Angelou and Langston Hughes, the writings of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., and Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois. They can have posters of Harriet Tubman and Halle Berry and Tina Turner. They can listen to the music of Muddy Waters and Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong.”
I suppose that is truly “cruel and unusual punishment”, but I think it’s a better one.
Killing is wrong.
And I can’t understand arguments against that.
**
Don’t worry. I’m not so anal that I let semantics get in the way of the real issue. Nor would I require you to be anal about it.
**
All of which are valid reasons to be against the death penalty. My primary concerns are getting the right person and the emotional toll it takes on those professionals who carry out the sentence.
**
I cannot see how someone can think all killing is wrong. If I happen to kill someone who is trying to kill me am I wrong? Anyone who says yes has a peculiar sense of right and wrong.
**
And when my rational process kicks in it says “I’d rather be in prison then dead.”
Let’s give them all the reading material they can handle. Of course let’s let them hang posters on their cell walls. Of course let’s let them listen to music in their cells. They can read the poetry of Maya Angelou and Langston Hughes, the writings of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., and Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois. They can have posters of Harriet Tubman and Halle Berry and Tina Turner. They can listen to the music of Muddy Waters and Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong."
I suppose that is truly “cruel and unusual punishment”, but I think it’s a better one.
Killing is wrong.
And I can’t understand arguments against that. **
[/QUOTE]
Killing is always wrong. Occasionally, it is necessary, but it is never good. Killing another human being hurts the killer, and risks making him - and those who sent him - less human.
One thing I’ve learned is that one shouldn’t confuse good and bad with right and wrong. I agree that killing a human being, even when it is necessary, is bad. But if it is necessary then I don’t see how one can say it is wrong. By saying I’m wrong for using deadly force in defense of my life you place me on the same moral plane as the dirt bag who initiated force. That hardly seems fair.
Marc
Point taken. However, unlike self defence, I do not think that executing a man in cold blood is ever necessary. Therefore, it is both bad and wrong
Some criminals may deserve to die, but we don’t deserve to kill them.
I’d say we reserve the right to mete out justice. Some call it vengence but I consider that to be part of justice. We need to get our pound of flesh.
Marc
Again, 810 convicted murderers killed 824 more innocent victims AFTER they were convicted for the 1st murder (and this was only in 4 years). If we had executed those 810, 824 other folks would still be alive. We execute murderers so that they will not kill again. “Life imprisonment” is not cutting it. If there was something other than death that would work, like cyrogenic freezing, then i would be 100% behind it. My suggestion was to use a reversable lobotomy, but THAT is “inhumane”- why more so than frying their asses, I can’t ever figure out, but there you go.
So, prisons do not work. Period. If you can think up something which 100% keeps murderers from killing again, but does not kill THEM, great. Until then- ass frying time.
-
-
- I still don’t see how execution is preceived as a “punishment” or “revenge” when the victim is not the one to administer the treatment and we cannot know exactly what happens to people during and after they die. The only reason to execute someone is to prevent them from ever killing again. - MC
-
Danielinthewolvesden asserts:
DITWD, that’s the second time you’ve used those numbers in this debate without backing them up. You said earlier that these numbers come from Columbia Law Review. Please cite the specific study. (I understand if you can’t provide a link.) It sure would be interesting to see:[ul][]if your numbers are anywhere near accurate[]which country(ies) we’re talking about[]which four year period we’re talking about[]how many of the escapees were already sentenced to death when they escapedhow those “824” additional murders were documented (i.e. through convictions of the escapees, or through supposition?)[/ul]Not that I doubt your sincerity, Dan’l’, just your accuracy and that of the (presumed) study from which your numbers come.
Here is an original thought. If there is a problem with the length of sentences for violent offenders, fix THAT problem. In Illinois for example, the last year that they had executions, the amount they spent in one year on executions could have gone to the hiring of 500 more police officers. (see above link on the costs of executions in my previous post)
Saying we need to kill people because we can’t make room for them in prison, or we have a too lenient parole system (or whatever the reason is that those 800 people got out of prison too early) …seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water
Actually, the Philadelphia Church of God says executions are an act of love for both society and the condemned murderer. Why? Let them explain it. The following are the last four paragraphs of a VERY long article complete with references to Biblical verses that SEEM to support their beliefs: (And if you can follow their convoluted logic, please explain it to me, because I am VERY 
)
Uhhh, yeah, sure… :rolleyes:
As for my take on the death penalty, I offer this as my sole reason why we shouldn’t do it:
Those who are in favor of the death penalty are admitting they are weak, that they have no power, over the criminals or over their own animalistic impulses.
My 2,000th post on the SDMB.
No one…no one has the right to take someone elses life,except in extreme cases of self defence.The execution culture that exists in what is supposedly a civilised country is obscene and perpetuates the theory that,in the right circumstances its cool to premeditate murder.
Killing someone isn’t always murder. And in the right context it is perfectly moral to plan on killing someone.
Marc
Xeno: i was quoting another poster, who in the LAST death Penalty thread, had more info on this. No-one had a problem with it then, and I have confirmed there WAS such an article, from my Lawyer buddy, but he does not remember when, etc. You could look it up, i suppose. I think a lot of the killing are other prisoners. But there are many others, such as Ted Bundy, who escaped & killed another 5.
jab: congrats on making the Big 2K, welcome to the club.
quentin: is IS “self-defence”. Murderers* kill again. Society also has the right to defend itself.
*(note that by “murderer” I am limiting the term to Murder1)
Beagle: Murderers kill guards, they kill other prisoners (a LOT), they escape and kill, and they are let go by foolish Judges, parole boards & Govenors. You would have to radically change the way prisons, and the entire system is run. For eg, the Governor of every stae can pardon or commute. Usually he is right- but sometimes he is tragicly wrong. How do you take that power away from him? There would also have to be special prisons for Murderers only, with every cell welded shut, and escape proof (nearly impossible).