The Death Penalty is a Good Thing

[Svartalf]

The death penalty is completely backward.

Because prisons are the greatest thing since sliced bread?

[Arse]

Yes, that's exactly why.

After 22 pages all the sensible arguments I would have made have already been made. I'm not going to waste my time rehashing them, just adding my vote to the others.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not all killing is murder. Murder is an illegal killing which has been planned beforehand.

Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of life.

I stand corrected. I had assumed malice aforethought was a requirement for murder.

Not all killing is murder. Murder is an illegal killing which has been planned beforehand.

some people regard all planned killing as murder... but what of war?

I don't regard all planned killing as murder.

[Blind groper]

I would like to repeat my earlier statement.

In the USA, putting a criminal to death costs the American taxpayer two and a half times as much, on average, as putting him/her in prison for life. The cost due to the extended legal process and multiple appeals.

If you try to cut the cost of legal process, then you inevitably increase the number of innocent people who are executed.

There was a most interesting newspaper article here in NZ some years back. The writer was an ex convict. He had been charged for white collar embezzlement, and was highly educated. He claimed, in the article, that prisoners did not lie to each other, whereas they lied to authorities almost as a matter of routine. From his conversations with the other prisoners, and their claims, he estimated that 25% of all those in prison were innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. Of course, this does not mean they were innocent overall, since most were repeat offenders. But 25% did not commit the crime that put them in prison.

You can argue with the 25% figure, but there is no doubt that a significant and large percentage of those convicted of murder and executed were innocent of that murder. If you decide to take 'short cuts' in the legal process, the percentage of innocents killed in this way will increase.

My own view is simple. If it is a lot less costly to lock someone up for life, then that is the smart thing to do. Why make the taxpayer fork out all that extra money? A murderer locked up for life is dealt with just as finally as one executed. When I say, 'for life', I mean until they are so old that there is no aggression left in them. Say till they are aged 70 years?

This approach means that an innocent committed for a crime he/she did not do has a chance of being proven innocent and released.

[Woodbutcher]

For serious crime you forfeit your human status and become a drone. You will be worked for you meager upkeep, and when you can no longer produce you will be kept in suspended animation until your useful organs have been harvested. The remains will be made into pet food and calcium supplements. Or:

[maiforpeace]

I would like to repeat my earlier statement.

In the USA, putting a criminal to death costs the American taxpayer two and a half times as much, on average, as putting him/her in prison for life. The cost due to the extended legal process and multiple appeals.

If you try to cut the cost of legal process, then you inevitably increase the number of innocent people who are executed.

There was a most interesting newspaper article here in NZ some years back. The writer was an ex convict. He had been charged for white collar embezzlement, and was highly educated. He claimed, in the article, that prisoners did not lie to each other, whereas they lied to authorities almost as a matter of routine. From his conversations with the other prisoners, and their claims, he estimated that 25% of all those in prison were innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. Of course, this does not mean they were innocent overall, since most were repeat offenders. But 25% did not commit the crime that put them in prison.

You can argue with the 25% figure, but there is no doubt that a significant and large percentage of those convicted of murder and executed were innocent of that murder. If you decide to take 'short cuts' in the legal process, the percentage of innocents killed in this way will increase.

My own view is simple. If it is a lot less costly to lock someone up for life, then that is the smart thing to do. Why make the taxpayer fork out all that extra money? A murderer locked up for life is dealt with just as finally as one executed. When I say, 'for life', I mean until they are so old that there is no aggression left in them. Say till they are aged 70 years?

This approach means that an innocent committed for a crime he/she did not do has a chance of being proven innocent and released.

That's just too logical Blind Groper....what kind of revenge is that?

And it's much too humane too. We need to be as punishing as possible.

Subject: The Death Penalty is a Good Thing

The death penalty in the US is a particularly terrible thing. With the current judicial system as it is, more money is spent on the long, drawn out appeals process than it costs to keep a prisoner for life.

Then there's the heartache, pain and toll this process takes on all involved - the criminal, the family of the criminal and particularly, the family of the victim. They won't get the satisfaction of seeing someone die when it might be healing. So, after years of appeals, they either have learned how to deal with it only to have the angst and heartache start up all over again when the penalty is finally implemented. Or, they have not dealt with it and remained hurt, angry and depressed the entire time. The criminal and his family are jerked around for years, wondering if they will be put to death, and/or when. I don't see this as humane or healing for anyone.

[Seth]

I would like to repeat my earlier statement.

In the USA, putting a criminal to death costs the American taxpayer two and a half times as much, on average, as putting him/her in prison for life. The cost due to the extended legal process and multiple appeals.

If you try to cut the cost of legal process, then you inevitably increase the number of innocent people who are executed.

On the other side of the scale is the fact that execution is a 100% cure for recidivism.

I support the death penalty, but I only support it where there is overwhelming forensic scientific (meaning falsifiable and repeatable) evidence of the guilt of the defendant, and not EVER, under ANY circumstances, only or even primarily based upon eyewitness testimony. The vast majority of people wrongfully convicted and either sentenced to death and later released or who are wrongfully executed were convicted based upon almost no forensic evidence at all and were usually convicted based on witness identification, and most of them were convicted based on cross-racial identification, which has recently been proven to be extremely inaccurate, more so than lie detector tests, which are not admissible as evidence.

If the prosecution can show through verifiable scientific forensic evidence beyond any shadow of a doubt that the defendant committed the crime, he/she should be sentenced to death with one, and only one appeal that can only challenge the forensic analysis and presentation.

And as a companion rule, in any case where the prosecution can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence to have deliberately and knowingly suppressed or concealed exculpatory evidence from the jury or the defense, the prosecutor shall be subject to exactly the same penalty that he/she sought for the defendant, with no right of appeal. That'll make them much more careful of the rights and presumptive innocence of the defendant.

My own view is simple. If it is a lot less costly to lock someone up for life, then that is the smart thing to do. Why make the taxpayer fork out all that extra money? A murderer locked up for life is dealt with just as finally as one executed. When I say, 'for life', I mean until they are so old that there is no aggression left in them. Say till they are aged 70 years?

This approach means that an innocent committed for a crime he/she did not do has a chance of being proven innocent and released.

My view is even simpler. It's not about cost, it's about public safety and sanitation. With a proper standard for conviction that disallows eyewitness testimony as evidence sufficient for conviction in a capital case and that requires irrefutable forensic evidence of guilt beyond any shadow of a doubt, only the most egregious offenders will be sent to death row, and they should be executed within six months of conviction unless acquitted entirely by the sole court of appeal within that six months. All such appeals should be expedited.

This prevents the wrongful conviction and sentencing to death of innocent persons and cuts the costs of incarceration to a fraction of what they are, and absolutely prevents some liberal asshole of a judge from deciding, 10 years or 20 years down the road that the death penalty was "too harsh" or was "cruel or unusual" out of ideological bias, to release a killer back into society.

You're entitled to a FAIR trial, not a PERFECT trial. And society is entitled to know with absolute certainty that people RIGHTFULLY convicted of killing other human beings can NEVER be released, and the death penalty is the only way to ensure that result.

[Blind groper]

Seth

As you said yourself, there is no such thing as a perfect trial. Regardless of how you set up the evidence requirements, of every 100 people executed for murder, somewhere between 5 and 25 will be innocent.

Locking someone up till he/she is 70 years old is also a perfect cure for recidivism. And a lot cheaper than the current system.

[Seth]

Seth

As you said yourself, there is no such thing as a perfect trial. Regardless of how you set up the evidence requirements, of every 100 people executed for murder, somewhere between 5 and 25 will be innocent.

Locking someone up till he/she is 70 years old is also a perfect cure for recidivism. And a lot cheaper than the current system.

No, it's not, because there is no guarantee that they will STAY locked up, as I pointed out.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is perhaps the quintessential example of someone who was justly and properly sentenced to death but escaped his punishment merely because of changing public opinion over the death penalty and overt racism.

He's a killer. He killed a cop in cold blood. He deserves to be executed so that he will be forever prevented from escaping his just punishment through legal manipulation. He's had FOUR trials in which his murder conviction has been upheld each and every time. But now he's off death row, and there's a substantial threat that he could be eventually released from prison through more legal manuverings, which would be a grave injustice and danger to the public.

He should have been dead no later than 1985.

[Tyrannical]

Seth

As you said yourself, there is no such thing as a perfect trial. Regardless of how you set up the evidence requirements, of every 100 people executed for murder, somewhere between 5 and 25 will be innocent.

Locking someone up till he/she is 70 years old is also a perfect cure for recidivism. And a lot cheaper than the current system.

Very few "innocent" people are jailed. It's the dredges of society that may happen to have not committed that act they were tried for. How many upstanding productive citizens are executed? Virtually none.
It is too expensive to jail someone, it consumes the tax resources of several productive people. The better alternative if you insist is the Constitutional imposing of slavery as punishment for a crime.

[Seth]

Seth

As you said yourself, there is no such thing as a perfect trial. Regardless of how you set up the evidence requirements, of every 100 people executed for murder, somewhere between 5 and 25 will be innocent.

Locking someone up till he/she is 70 years old is also a perfect cure for recidivism. And a lot cheaper than the current system.

Very few "innocent" people are jailed. It's the dredges of society that may happen to have not committed that act they were tried for. How many upstanding productive citizens are executed? Virtually none.
It is too expensive to jail someone, it consumes the tax resources of several productive people. The better alternative if you insist is the Constitutional imposing of slavery as punishment for a crime.

Unless you're black or Latino, in which case it's very easy to be wrongfully arrested and convicted and sent to prison.

[Blind groper]

It is too expensive to jail someone,

And as I have pointed out, several times, it is a lot more expensive to execute them.

[Seth]

It is too expensive to jail someone,

And as I have pointed out, several times, it is a lot more expensive to execute them.

That we can fix. And it's not about the money anyway. That particular argument is always made by anti-death penalty proponents, as if those in favor of the death penalty are concerned about the costs more than they are about the administration of justice to evildoers.

[Blind groper]

There are three real issues surrounding the death penalty.

1. The cost - which is always important.
2. How many innocents get killed in error.
3. Does the system work? That is : if we are carrying out executions for murder, does the fact that murderers are executed lead to fewer murders. This is still a very moot point, and arguments rage on both sides.

There are also a bunch of pseudo-issues, which are used by those who engage in emotional, rather than rational argument. In other words, argument that should not be engaged in by rational people, such as those on this forum claim to be. These include 'punishment', 'retribution', and 'justice'. Those terms are meaningless apart from providing fodder for peoples emotions.

[Seth]

There are three real issues surrounding the death penalty.

1. The cost - which is always important.

Cut costs by limiting convicts to a single consolidated appeal, cut them more by using the Chinese method of execution, which is a bullet in the back of the head, and cut them even more by expediting death-penalty trials and appeals so the whole process is completed within one year.

2. How many innocents get killed in error.

A valid concern, but one that can be fixed by raising the bar required for the death penalty as I've previously suggested.

3. Does the system work? That is : if we are carrying out executions for murder, does the fact that murderers are executed lead to fewer murders.

It leads to fewer murderers by that murderer, that much is certain. Whether it's a deterrent or not depends more on the swiftness with which justice is dispensed than with the penalty itself. Much of the deterrent effect of the death penalty in the US is swept away by the cumbersome and lengthy appeals process and the high likelihood that eventually the convict's sentence will be overturned or set aside long after the original trial, and long after everyone but the defendant has forgotten the heinous and evil nature of the crimes.

Make execution swift and certain and the deterrent effect is enhanced.

This is still a very moot point, and arguments rage on both sides.

I don't know what's "moot" about it.

There are also a bunch of pseudo-issues, which are used by those who engage in emotional, rather than rational argument. In other words, argument that should not be engaged in by rational people, such as those on this forum claim to be. These include 'punishment', 'retribution', and 'justice'. Those terms are meaningless apart from providing fodder for peoples emotions.

Unless it's YOUR child that's been raped and murdered, of course. Then words like "punishment", "retribution" and "justice" have deep and important meaning.

It's easy to quack on philosophically about such things when you're not the victim or the victim's family.