Capital Punishment. Will you pull the switch?

I'm for capital punishment. If it was my job to pull the switch or give an injection of a toxin, then I would do my job.

This is one of those questions which I cannot make up mind abt.

yes, I support capital punishement. A person who kills anyone in cold blood does not deserve to live. But then death is too easy a way out, he should be sent to jail, and kept behind bars for the rest of his life. Taking away one's freedom is a bigger punishement than taking away one's life.

But then I dont like the idea of my tax dollars in keeping this person alive....

Sorry, I am a bit raidcal out here !!!

First, I voted "Yes, if I had personal knowledge of inmate's guilt." I chose that option because I do believe I could do it if necessary. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind about it.

That's a very different thing than writing that I want to do it or that I think it should be done.

In fact, I am opposed to the death penalty, because I believe that once we decide that we need to permanently remove a person from society to ensure the safety of others, what we do then says nothing about that person and everything about who we are as a people. Our righteous desire for vengeance, however natural, should not be the basis for deciding such things, any more than our natural impulse to harm those who deny us what we desire should rule our personal behavior.

When Gandhi first visited the United States, a reporter asked him what he thought of civilization. He replied, "I think it would be a wonderful idea." I think his point was that civilization is not a thing, it is the sum of the actions we take and the choices we make as human beings.

Could I? Of course. If something happened to my daughter or my husband or someone else I love dearly, I would do it in an instant. The question is, should I be able to indulge my baser revenge fantasies?

I've read a fair amount about the death penalty, and one thing that has struck me is how many people in Joanne's position think the way she does, and how many people who think they will get "closure" do not.

Timber, actually that quote was "What do you think of Western civilization?/ I think it would be a good idea." (That was my quote in my yearbook, and I thought of putting it here.) I think it was specifically a dig at the West.

Closure is a meaningless concept, whether it be after the murder of a loved one or any other personal tragedy. It's the sort of thing moronic reporters ask grieving family members after a verdict is delivered. "Will this help you gain closure now?"

Closure meaning what? Not missing the person who died? Feeling OK about it all? That the score is now even? It's so demeaning to expect this of people.

Exactly. In fact, the whole point of having disinterested parties decide the fate of the accused is intended to remove personal animus and the quest for revenge from the equation. This is why I see the current trend of allowing statements by the victim's family and friends at sentencing as being a step backwards. Our system of justice is supposed to be divorced from considering these feelings and opinions.

Well, I regard execution not as a punishment, but as a society protection measure. Punishment is intended to correct a person, death penalty has another goals: to eliminate extremely dangerous members from the society for sure and forever, and to be a deterrent to the people that have evil intentions.
We cannot assess its efficiency, since we do not know how many people decided not to commit murder out of fear of being executed: they will never tell us of their intentions. By all means, execution of serious criminal is the most efficient way of neutralizing him/her and protecting society.
I support death penalty for murder, for treason, for several trespasses of the military in course of war (deserting, refusal to submit the commander's instructions, rebellion, conscription refusal, etc.), for group rape, for espionage and for involvement in terror activities. Unfortunately, in my country there is no death penalty. Well, such a thing appears in the law books, but it was applied only once (to Adolf Eichmann that was abducted from Argentine in '60s, tried with genocide charges and executed ). Maybe, if the terror leaders were tried and hanged, there would be less terror attacks on civilians (the leaders that send others to commit suicide bombings usually tend to overestimate value of their own lives).

Georgeob,

The actual question asked was about capital punishment. I, for one, could and would most happily discourse about the criminal justice system, if asked - it is a most fascinating topic - and a terribly sad one, and one of which, as it happens, I have a great deal of knowledge.

Public executions were a common and appalling practice in many societies. They are, horribly, still present in some - but most of the world has progressed beyond such horror - at least in their judicial system. Are you saying that the USA has been free of this barbaric practice throughout its history? I have just been reading of the history of New York City - and it mentions, for instance, leaders of a slave revolt being slowly burned to death (a death which lasted for hours) in public. My assumption would have been that most countries indulged in public executions up until a certain point in their development. I do not think it fair to single out Europe, unless you have evidence of the practice persisting there for a significant period after it ceased elsewhere in the west.

Your point about opinion polls showing strong support for capital punishment in countries which have outlawed it is fascinating.

Most western governments are aware of this - but have not been swayed by it. I guess this could be seen as undemocratic - as when your federal government enforced de-segregation in the south. I do wonder if - were people actually to be asked to vote in a referendum in these countries - a simple yes to a poll question would translate into a considered yes vote, after an informed debate. I do not know. If my country were to have such a referendum, I believe it should be part of a "yes" vote that citizens be called upon, in turn, to perform executions personally - perhaps this would concentrate minds in a different sort of way - I do not know.

Sometimes governments move faster than the populace in certain directions - whether for good or ill is, I suppose, a matter of very strongly held opinion - the notion of governments taking somewhat unpopular, but perhaps enlightened, stands, ahead of popular opinion, would be a fascinating debate. Doubtless one of the hotter ones.

Yes, I believe I could do it. I do not believe I would enjoy it.

Is it possible that if the death penalty were more widely used, we would see some improvement in the judicial system? That is, would a guilty verdict come to more closely represent reality if the jurors were aware they were condeming the accused to death, or is it possible they would tend to acquit out of their reluctance to order the execution.

probably wouldn't be overly effective against suicide bombers or terrorists who fly planes into buildings but what the hey, it lets the govt get in on the killing business with aplomb unrelated to simple war and if a few innocent people get offed it still sets an example for others.

Can we successfully and permanently remove a person from society without killing him or her? I think we can.

So do I. I must post a discussion about this that I've been avoiding. I'll do this now.

from the Washington Post article:
'Frank McNeirney, national coordinator of Catholics Against Capital Punishment, said he hopes other governors will look at granting clemency. "Surveys show that there's more than half of Catholics support the death penalty. But it drops when life without possibility of parole is given as an alternative," he said. "People just want to see these guys put away and not get out in society again."'

I wonder about the polling which purports to say what people really think. How many realize that because of the high costs of protecting an accused person, there is an automatic and extremely costly appeals process which may go on for years and years. In a recent case $3 million was provided just for a single appeal's defense attorneys, all of this out of public funds. Of course, the costs of the court and the prosecution was not included.

I am against the death penalty and for the alternative of life without parole. Appeals could still be made, but the state would not face the same desperation of bending over backwards to be fair. This alternative punishment is great, yet it leaves the possibililty for the prisoner to find a way to be a contributing member of society, even while spending the rest of his or her life in prison.

Realize that without capital punishment, the taxes you pay go to support the life of the convict who killed your loved one. Unfortunately, the appellate courts and lawyers have made it more expensive to execute them than keep them alive.

If execution were a surer, swifter follow-on to a Death Sentence, it is likely the circumstances resulting in Death Penalty Verdicts would decline. Still, I see The Death Penalty as Revenge, not Remedy. I think it by and large barbaric.

However, should one cause grievous harm to a personal dear one of mine, that one likely would be fortunate to achieve the shelter of law, however dire, and thus avoid my personal form of redress.

I still haven't voted in the poll. It's a tough question, much dependent, I think, on circumstance.




timber

how much is the life of one innocent person worth?

(Sorry for mistaking you for timber, tresspassers will -- scanned too fast, and your level of sense [high] was similar to his.)

Here is the discussion about an alternate punishment.

Thanks for the nod, soz. I didn't even catch that till you mentioned it. I get a kcik out of Ghandi myself, and from Tresspassers Will, too. Not bad company to be thought among at all.



timber.

Often I wonder if men had to bear the sole tax burden for the men in prison for violant crimes or on death row and women paid only for the women in prison violant crimes and on death row how would proponants of the death penalty line up. It seems to me women have the unfair tax burden in supporting prisoners and are most often the victims of violant crime.