Capital punishment

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-04-22 02:33pm

What are your views on capital punishment? For the purposes of this discussion, if you believe that capital punishment is justified under any circumstances, vote "In favour of". If you believe that capital punishment is never justified, vote "Opposed to".

Please explain why you voted as you do, and, if necessary, under what circumstances you feel capital punishment is justified.

Publius

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-22 02:39pm

For.

At times, for some crimes, it is the only fitting punishment. Plus, while this might sound a bit calous, it can serve as a good example. If it happened more often, it might make some criminals think twice before committing their crimes.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-22 02:42pm

I am a strong advocate of straddling the fence on this issue.

Seriously, I bounce back and forth so frequently on this matter that I can't give you a good answer.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-04-22 03:07pm

It costs money to feed and cloth them. However I would rather be executed than rot in a prison for the rest of my life if I was sentenced.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-22 03:14pm

It costs more to keep someone on death row and execute him than it does to feed/clothe him for life.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-04-22 03:19pm

Durran Korr wrote:It costs more to keep someone on death row and execute him than it does to feed/clothe him for life.

I would advocate for shorter prison terms to let them die much much sooner then.

Cyaround,
Jason

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-22 03:27pm

Durran Korr wrote:It costs more to keep someone on death row and execute him than it does to feed/clothe him for life.

One appeal allowed, then it's the noose, followed by dangling, kicking and loss of bowel control...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-22 03:31pm

One appeal is often not enough; if we're going to be executing people, there cannot be any doubt that they are guilty.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-22 03:33pm

I have no moral objection to capital punishment as a theoretical concept. As a practical matter, however, capital punishment is an ethical mess. It's applied unevenly--one look at the statistics tells you if you're black and poor, you're a lot more likely to go to death row than if you're white and middle class. I don't like playing the race card, but there it is. And there's been entirely too many prosecutorial shenanigans in death penalty cases for my tastes. I don't like the idea of putting any innocent man to death on my dime (as a taxpayer). Now, you can get into all kinds of debates on what margin of error is acceptable in capital cases, but the fact of the matter is, right now, the justice system in most states is bordering on criminal negligence in how it deals with ensuring innocent men are not executed. That's part of why I don't mind a long, expensive Federal appeals process--the money and time spent is worth far less than the life of a single man unjustly convicted.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-22 03:44pm

Nathan F wrote:For.

At times, for some crimes, it is the only fitting punishment.

I tend to agree.

Plus, while this might sound a bit calous, it can serve as a good example. If it happened more often, it might make some criminals think twice before committing their crimes.

I tend to disagree. Capital punishment-worthy crimes are usually committed by enraged or insane people who have their minds set on it. It may be justifiable, but it certainly isn't a deterrent.

My opinion on the issue is that the American justice system is far too corrupt and unreliable to effectively implement capital punishment with any acceptable degree of certainty. Court rooms are more concerned with how good a show each lawyer puts on in a trial as opposed to actual facts, because the people deciding the verdict are everyday people who are chosen by each lawyer on the basis of how easily they can be manipulated. And let's face it, everyday people are largely morons. A trial is not for deciding which lawyer gets the Oscar for best show; it's for finding the truth. Lawyers only care about winning. Capital punishment, like the War on Drugs, has become a bane to minorities all over the country. A black homeless guy is far more likely to be given the death penalty if convicted than a white guy for the same crime.

Until we can develop a more impartial justice system, we shouldn't be doling out irreversible punishments.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-04-22 03:46pm

I am opposed to capital punishment for several reasons. The major ones include:

That it has never been shown to have measurable effects on the numbers of crimes comitted.
That you always run the risk of executing an innocent person.
That it costs more to execute a person due to appeals to avoid executing innocents than it does to imprison them for life.
That imprisoning someone for the rest of their life accomplishes essentialy the same thing. You can always throw someone in solitary confinement if they are dangerous after all.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-22 04:13pm

I am hesitant on the issue only because of the joke that our legal system has become. I believe in the idea and the concept that some crimes can only be punished with death. However, as others have already pointed out, the current legal system is both corrupt and full of attension grabbing whores who really don't care about the well being of their clients but in the publicity and the future buissness that some clients will bring in or their own fame.

I object to both the unfairness of who gets the death penelty and those who don't. I object to the open check book that defendents get to appeal his/her case or any inadaquacy they think they experience in jail. I object to lawyers attempting to try cases in the media way before they are even in the courtroom. And I object that it cost 60 grand on average to hold a prisoner in prison per year, I DON'T MAKE THAT MUCH AND I AM NOT IN JAIL.

As usual, there is too much money in the system that various factions are in a constant race to grab. It should not cost thousands of bucks to fry a convict, rather that money should be invested in the out set to determine the guilt or innocent of the suspect.

Brutal fucktards who commit crimes unimaginable to normal people should be killed, but not at the cost of a kings ransom. Nor should every defendent be painted like a brutal fucktard for political purposes.

As usual....IMHO.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-04-22 04:15pm

Durran Korr wrote:It costs more to keep someone on death row and execute him than it does to feed/clothe him for life.

Oh... ok opposed. But I voted for in the poll.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-04-22 04:27pm

For. In some cases it is the best you can do. But I also propose it under very heavy restrictions. I once laid out a plan for capital punishment and dealing with endless appeals.

The accused will get the first trial. If the entire jury, unanimously, agrees to give him the death penalty, then the guy goes to death row to await execution. He is allowed a maximum of three appeals. If, during his three appeals, ALL THREE juries agree to uphold the death penalty that was originally given, then the execution takes place at the earliest possible opportunity.

If one single jury is split or disagrees with the death penalty, then the sentence is transmuted to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.

If the prisoner is in good health, and agrees to volunteer as a human subject for pharmaceuticals testing, he is given luxury accomodations to live in while he gives a little back tot he society that he took so much from.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-04-22 05:33pm

jegs2 wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:It costs more to keep someone on death row and execute him than it does to feed/clothe him for life.
One appeal allowed, then it's the noose, followed by dangling, kicking and loss of bowel control...

Do you have any idea how fucking stupid that is? You will kill hundreds of innocent people under such a system.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-04-22 05:34pm

RedImperator wrote:I have no moral objection to capital punishment as a theoretical concept. As a practical matter, however, capital punishment is an ethical mess. It's applied unevenly--one look at the statistics tells you if you're black and poor, you're a lot more likely to go to death row than if you're white and middle class. I don't like playing the race card, but there it is. And there's been entirely too many prosecutorial shenanigans in death penalty cases for my tastes. I don't like the idea of putting any innocent man to death on my dime (as a taxpayer). Now, you can get into all kinds of debates on what margin of error is acceptable in capital cases, but the fact of the matter is, right now, the justice system in most states is bordering on criminal negligence in how it deals with ensuring innocent men are not executed. That's part of why I don't mind a long, expensive Federal appeals process--the money and time spent is worth far less than the life of a single man unjustly convicted.

Hear hear. My thoughts exactly.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-04-22 05:38pm

I'm for capital punishment. When i see people like the couple accused of the Soham murders, and guys, and in some rare cases girls, who rape and murder kids what else can you do. People who abuse and murder kids have a disease and the cannot be cured the only solution is a nice injection or a hangmans knot.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-22 05:47pm

I'm in favor of it, I'm also convinced the US system works quite well since the ACLU was unable to find a single case of a killing of an innocent person.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-22 05:51pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:I'm in favor of it, I'm also convinced the US system works quite well since the ACLU was unable to find a single case of a killing of an innocent person.

So all those people released thanks to DNA evidence in the last few years were the only innocent people ever sentenced to death, and there wasn't one single person who could have had his conviction justly overturned who didn't? The administration of the death penalty is a fucking cockup--I'm as sure as the sun rises in the east that innocent people have been put to death. It would be a miracle if they weren't.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-22 05:59pm

RedImperator wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:I'm in favor of it, I'm also convinced the US system works quite well since the ACLU was unable to find a single case of a killing of an innocent person.
So all those people released thanks to DNA evidence in the last few years were the only innocent people ever sentenced to death, and there wasn't one single person who could have had his conviction justly overturned who didn't? The administration of the death penalty is a fucking cockup--I'm as sure as the sun rises in the east that innocent people have been put to death. It would be a miracle if they weren't.

Got a name? No? You just have examples of wrongs being righted by the system.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-22 06:12pm

The question is sort of loaded, since one must vote "yes" if he would accept capital punishment for any circumstance, even if it's only restricted to highly unusual cases like Osama Bin Laden. I think the results will be misleading as a result.

Anyway, I would support capital punishment if the following conditions could be met:

1) It is only used for crimes involving murder; capital punishment as a penalty for a crime lesser than murder would only create an incentive for criminals to escalate from the lesser crime to murder itself, because ... what's the difference? That is the justification for not making rape a capital offense.

2) A much higher standard of proof is required. Actual physical evidence should be required. Anyone convicted on circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony alone should not get the death penalty. Both have been shown to be highly unreliable.

3) The defendant is given his choice of public defendants, and failing a decision, he is given a reasonable budget to hire a competent private defense lawyer. Assigning an apathetic public defendant to a low-income defendant is a travesty of justice, particularly when men like OJ Simpson are walking around free.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-22 06:15pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Got a name? No? You just have examples of wrongs being righted by the system.

True, but it stands to reason that if we're having a steady stream of convictions being overturned by DNA testing, then men convicted using similar means prior to the advent of DNA testing were probably sent to the grave without being guilty. And since not every criminal gets DNA testing on demand, it also stands to reason that not every possible precaution has been taken to ensure their guilt.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-22 06:16pm

The defendant is given his choice of public defendants, and failing a decision, he is given a reasonable budget to hire a competent private defense lawyer. Assigning an apathetic public defendant to a low-income defendant is a travesty of justice, particularly when men like OJ Simpson are walking around free.

What about pro bono lawyers?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-22 06:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Got a name? No? You just have examples of wrongs being righted by the system.
True, but it stands to reason that if we're having a steady stream of convictions being overturned by DNA testing, then men convicted using similar means prior to the advent of DNA testing were probably sent to the grave without being guilty. And since not every criminal gets DNA testing on demand, it also stands to reason that not every possible precaution has been taken to ensure their guilt.

Some states do have this problem in a large way. The governor of Pennsylvania, hardly a death penalty abolitionist, issued a moratorium on the death penalty on this basis.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-22 06:19pm

Durran Korr wrote:
The defendant is given his choice of public defendants, and failing a decision, he is given a reasonable budget to hire a competent private defense lawyer. Assigning an apathetic public defendant to a low-income defendant is a travesty of justice, particularly when men like OJ Simpson are walking around free.
What about pro bono lawyers?

Not enough of them, unfortunately.