ABORTION.......

Questioner- And that is why I believe that the death penalty should be given if and only if the individual's guilt is proven WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

... I have serious doubts about our judicial system, and it's capacity for error. The death penalty, as it stands now, is too easy to abuse. ( I say this from the state of Texas ) In cases where there aren't at least 3 eye witnesses of credible stature I get uneasy about the death penalty being applied.

IL has put a moratorium on executions for the same issues. There are too many cases where DNA has eventually exculpated death row inmates to assume that the judicial system is cautious enough in applying death penalty convictions.

0 Replies

But we now do have DNA as a backup, something that was not available in years past. This makes cases of mistaken identity virtually impossible.

The point is, there must be an ultimate penalty--something between life in prison and the penalty for crimes that are far worse than those meriting life in prison. This is not vengeance. It is enforcing the penalty of law.

You jaywalk, you pay a $10 penalty.
You steal a car - up to 5 years
You rob a bank at gunpoint - up to 20 years.
You shoot somebody committing a crime - life in prison.
You murder somebody in the most premediated, cruel, inhumane way possible, and you die.

0 Replies

Quote:

IL has put a moratorium on executions for the same issues. There are too many cases where DNA has eventually exculpated death row inmates to assume that the judicial system is cautious enough in applying death penalty convictions.

You have to remember that it often takes many years for a criminal on death row to actually be executed. Appeal after appeal accounts for this.

A lot of people who were on death row were sentenced BEFORE DNA evidence was in common use. I tend to think that forensic investigations have become sophisticated to the point where there will be far fewer mistakes made.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You jaywalk, you pay a $10 penalty.
You steal a car - up to 5 years
You rob a bank at gunpoint - up to 20 years.
You shoot somebody committing a crime - life in prison.
You murder somebody in the most premediated, cruel, inhumane way possible, and you die.

I would rewrite the last one as, "You murder somebody in the most premediated, cruel, inhumane way possible, and you are murdered."

Don't get me wrong, some murders bother me less than others (to quote BVT from another thread) but its still murder. For instance, Wisconsin is not a death penalty state. If ever there was a candidate for government sanctioned murder it was Jeffrey Dahmer. He received the maximum penalty available in the state of Wisconsin - life in prison. He was subsequently murdered by an inmate in the prison gymnasium. Like I said, some murders bother me less than others.

0 Replies

Quote:

You shoot somebody committing a crime - life in prison.

I don't agree with this at all. If someone breaks into your house you should be well within your rights to shoot them. Especially if you have family in the house.

Likewise, if there are 8 people beating someone out on a sidewalk, and the guy has a liscense to carry a firearm and pulls it out to save himself then he should be allowed to do so without fear of further punishment.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Quote:
You shoot somebody committing a crime - life in prison.

I don't agree with this at all. If someone breaks into your house you should be well within your rights to shoot them. Especially if you have family in the house.

Likewise, if there are 8 people beating someone out on a sidewalk, and the guy has a liscense to carry a firearm and pulls it out to save himself then he should be allowed to do so without fear of further punishment.

I actually tried to edit my awkwardly phrased sentence, and I might have interpreted my intent as you did if somebody else had written it. Somebody else posted though before I could edit.

I intended to say: You shoot somebody in the course of a crime you are committing, and it's life in prison.

And yes, anybody should be able to defend themselves against another intent on doing them harm, and whatever defense is warranted should be 100% legal.

0 Replies

Ah, well then yes, that's more agreeable.

0 Replies

Although, on second glance, I still would be capable of rendering the death penalty to someone that shoots a store clerk for $25. I guess it would depend somewhat on the specifics of the case.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Although, on second glance, I still would be capable of rendering the death penalty to someone that shoots a store clerk for $25. I guess it would depend somewhat on the specifics of the case.

I disagree about that. If you would render the death penalty to someone who shoots a store clerk, IMO, it would follow that you would probably believe in the death penalty for just about any kind of murder.

Going along with my thoughts on the heinousness of the crime, I would not advocate the death penalty for the guy who shoots the clerk. If however, the store were closed, and the robber locked the clerk in the walk in freezer where the poor guy slowly froze to death, then I would think that the death penalty was appropriate.

0 Replies

Exactly. Murder is terrible and a person should lose their freedom and all rights other than the most basic human rights to reasonably humane treatment if s/he commits it. I do not think enforcing a death penalty for the cruel, sadistic torturing murderer is murder at all. It is enforcing a set penalty for a particular crime.

Actually it might not even be necessary to actually kill somebody. I remember one case where a trucker abducted a teenager, brutally raped and tortured her, cut off her forearms, and dumped her naked on the highway to bleed to death. She was rescued and lived. But he deserves to fry.

0 Replies

As a past proponent of the death penalty I would have previously agreed with you. However, studies have shown there is no deterrent effect and the cost of death penalty cases outweighs the cost of incarceration. I would provide food, shelter, and clothing in a maximum security prison for life.

The Scott Peterson case is another example I would cite. He was convicted of brutally murdering his wife and unborn child and sentenced to death on a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. I don't think any case should be tried as a capital case in the absense of DNA or eye witness evidence. Even with DNA and eye witness evidence I don't agree with government sanctioned executions.

0 Replies

There have been no studies conducted, that I know of, but there have been numerous histories reported, where people in the commission of a crime did not go that one step further that would ensure their being subject to the death penalty if caught. All the studies show is that murders and other horrible crimes continue in spite of the death penalty.

My sense of justice says that there must be an additional option between crimes that merit life in prison and those that do even worse.

0 Replies

I understand what you are saying about wanting something more than life in prison in certain cases but I can no longer bring myself to say that capital punishment is the right answer.

I used to flippantly say things like, at least it prevents repeat offenses, or I'd rather see them dead than have to pay the tax bill to keep them alive. Well, it costs more to kill them than it does to keep them alive and life in prison without possibility of parole prevents repeat offenses too. No matter what reason I came up with for justifying putting someone to death, I found evidence through studies that indicated my position was emotional, not factual.

This is a good link that discusses the cost of the death penalty:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

and there are many that discuss the death penalty's failure as a deterrent. This one is from the Amnesty International website:

Quote:

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 , concluded: ". . . research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis".

It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crimes are highly unstable or mentally ill -- the execution of Larry Robison, diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, in the USA on 21 January 2000 is just one such example. In none of these cases can the fear of the death penalty be expected to deter. Moreover, those who do commit premeditated serious crimes may decide to proceed despite the risks in the belief that they will not be caught. The key to deterrence in such cases is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction.

The fact that no clear evidence exists to show that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect points to the futility and danger of relying on the deterrence hypothesis as a basis for public policy on the death penalty. The death penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/dp_qa.html

This one summarizes deterrent studies

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STUDIES

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Questioner wrote:
Although, on second glance, I still would be capable of rendering the death penalty to someone that shoots a store clerk for $25. I guess it would depend somewhat on the specifics of the case.

Quote:
I disagree about that. If you would render the death penalty to someone who shoots a store clerk, IMO, it would follow that you would probably believe in the death penalty for just about any kind of murder.

I would. This would, of course, not include manslaughter or negligent homicide in most instances. But if you, for whatever reason, shoot, stab, gas, strangle, or by some other means end the life of another individual for personal gain, you deserve to die. I believe that strongly.

The only thing that stops me from being a ground-beating proponent of the death penalty is the erroneous potential of our judicial system.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

I understand what you are saying about wanting something more than life in prison in certain cases but I can no longer bring myself to say that capital punishment is the right answer.

I used to flippantly say things like, at least it prevents repeat offenses, or I'd rather see them dead than have to pay the tax bill to keep them alive. Well, it costs more to kill them than it does to keep them alive and life in prison without possibility of parole prevents repeat offenses too. No matter what reason I came up with for justifying putting someone to death, I found evidence through studies that indicated my position was emotional, not factual.

This is a good link that discusses the cost of the death penalty:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

and there are many that discuss the death penalty's failure as a deterrent. This one is from the Amnesty International website:

Quote:
Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 , concluded: ". . . research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis".

It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crimes are highly unstable or mentally ill -- the execution of Larry Robison, diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, in the USA on 21 January 2000 is just one such example. In none of these cases can the fear of the death penalty be expected to deter. Moreover, those who do commit premeditated serious crimes may decide to proceed despite the risks in the belief that they will not be caught. The key to deterrence in such cases is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction.

The fact that no clear evidence exists to show that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect points to the futility and danger of relying on the deterrence hypothesis as a basis for public policy on the death penalty. The death penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/dp_qa.html

This one summarizes deterrent studies

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STUDIES

While Amnesty International provides a valuable service and does some good work, you don't seriously consider them an objective source on a discussion of the death penalty, do you? In their defense, I have seen opinions written by others who reflect the views expressed in your post, but all are anti-death penalty proponents when they write them.

There are many other case histories related in which criminals have very much considered the consequences. Some try very hard not to inflict harm to victims of their crimes purely to avoid incurring the severest penalties if they are caught. If the presence of a death penalty dissuades even a few from eliminating witnesses. etc.. and there is plenty of evidence that it has, then it is more than worth it. Studies of the type cited by AI and other anti-death-penalty advocates don't ever show the stats on those who are dissuaded. Their implication is that such doesn't exist.

Does the death penalty reduce crime? You can't prove it by the statistics because crime typically increases everywhere anyway, but it is certain that the executied cannot commit another horrible. brutal crime.

0 Replies

No, I certainly don't consider AI to be objective. I was using the AI site to quote a study done for the UN. Also, agreed that deathpenaltyinfo.org is not neutral but some of the studies in their links were as unbiased as any I've seen.

I understand the emotional need for justice. I simply don't feel that society is justified in avenging the taking of a life by the taking of another.

There have only been a few respondants to djjd's question and no clear-cut delineation between abortion stand and capital punishment. So far, I haven't seen anyone say that assisted suicide should be banned in all cases from anyone.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

As a past proponent of the death penalty I would have previously agreed with you. However, studies have shown there is no deterrent effect ....................

The death penalty has a 100% deterrent effect. There are no known cases of repeat offenders when the penalty has been carried out.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know