WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON THE DEATH PENALTY?

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/419/index.html
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/cri ... 67298.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44359808/ns ... y-million/

So much for the unpholding of constitution and freedom when you make a prison that profits on keeping inmates in as long as possible.

Hi, Seems to me that the most important point, one that we can all agree on, is that someone sentenced to death may be innocent. How about someone who is unquestionably guilty? How about 'Dekkai', I think his name is, shot 9 people at a beauty salon; witnesses aplenty, one woman was killed in front of her own mother, there is no question of possible innocence, how could he appeal? Another example, possibly trite, but the group of geniuses who obeyed Charles Manson....no question whatsoever of innocence, we've been feeding them for 30 years...1 was released, rehabilitated, 'Squeaky' Fromme then tried to assasinate the president! Sylkat

Murder and violent rampage for me are two different crimes. Personally I think releasing any of Charles Manson's group was a stupid idea anyway. They should have been left in the klink. Although people keep arguing that I am saying that because I don't believe in the death penalty, then I shouldn't then belief in actual life sentences, wrongly.

Dear Gedrene, I think that we (you and I, at least) can agree that some people should never be released if they are given life sentences; the risk is too great. That was my point in referring to Manson's Idiot Group; once a life sentence is handed down, we feed and care for someone for LIFE. While in prison, new evidence, new decisions, further investigations may prove innocence, then we have not killed someone who has been protesting the verdict all along. There are those however, who are unquestionably guilty...John Wayne Gacy, Robert Picton, Dorothea Puente, Gary Ridgeway (Green River), who, if not sentenced to die will simply be fed, study lawbooks, demand retrials, marry, write books all at our expense for decades. Those are the people for whom the death penalty seems to make sense. Sylkat

Well that's just the world not being perfect is it. If we cannot expect to judge correctly always in Death Penalties then we should expect to have to care about all the monsters we simply keep in prison unto death. That is something that I can say is a sad fact.


As I have already pointed out though Sylkat in a previous post people will simply use that as a pretence to say that people are unquestionably guilty when they are not. In fact that is exactly the problem with the Death penalty in the USA right now. it's infrequently used and much of the time it's clear that the evidence used is based on great mistakes in most trials. Again, shown in a link I produced above.

This. Also, for crimes in which one person goes on a killing spree and kills say, 22 people, the only way to compensate for the 22 deaths would be to administer the death penalty to the shooter 22 times. Which can't happen. Even if it could, using the death penalty won't make anyone find closure. I'm against the death penalty during times of non-warfare.

dress circle.

Wow, interesting that I actually find someone who's to the other side of me for once.

I think the three main arguments of death penalty are for us people: Yes if the evidence is 'irrefutable and damning'. Yes if it's 'a rampage'. Or Yes if it's war and fighting.

Well I guess that's an interesting spectrum.

There are over a thousand people in America alone who are on Death Row in various states...seven hundred in California alone. I don't know the number whom are still protesting their innocence and fighting their convictions, but there are HUNDREDS who are unquestionably guilty. If you, I mean everyone in this discussion, were on the jury, would you have sentenced Susan Smith to death? Karla Homolka? John Wayne Gacey? I know I am using famous cases, again, and that Gacey was executed, but my point is that some people ARE guilty and there are crimes where there is no question of innocence. Dorothea Puente had SEVEN people buried in her yard, yet the people of California got to feed and care for her until she died of natural causes...I agree with your terminology, Gedrene, those bodies were 'irrefutable and damning'. Sylkat

I know I might get flak for this, so please wait until the end of my post to make your judgment.

I feel the death penalty does not work in America because we do not kill enough people to make it a deterrent. I want a broader application of the death penalty for all forms of murder including violent rape and such. And the more torturous the punishment the more deterrent it is. But this is a pipe dream and not able to be done FAIRLY.

Basically everyone knows about the strictness of Draco's laws and the known adjective in English. But that is not technically true. Draco set up the laws to favor the aristocracy. What the Draconian part was affected the poor and the common people more disproportionately. This is still true today because of the way the American justice system is set up. Despite the Caylee Anthony and OJ Simpson cases, our system works, because it truly is innocent until proven guilty. They just had good lawyers to pull it off. The poor and lower-class cannot afford lawyers of that caliber, so if you do what I want to the law, Death Row will be composed of mostly poor and lower-class people. The death penalty and refusal to provide contraceptive services impact the poor much greater than the rich. The stricter and more severe the laws get, the more the defenseless pay.

Dear Herr Grimm, first, that is one impressive wolf!, Secondly, there are some points of yours that I definitely agree with, especially the difference in the treatment of rich versus poor. I believe that Claus Von Bulow would have been jailed for life if he he'd been a poor man, with the same evidence against him. Sylkat

I wrestle with his issue a lot. I tend to be conservative/libertarian, a lot of times, I lean libertarian and that side of me always asks where "does the State have the right to take a life in a non threatening situation?" I can see taking a life to stop a crime/threat that is imminent or nearly so, self defense or in wartime but beyond that, it gets murky. I also add, "what if the system is wrong?" There is no way to bring back someone from the dead that I know of. I can see maybe the death penalty applying if the crime is very heinous or if it is high treason but even then, there should be a very high standard to remove all doubts first. One of my favorite TV shows, which I'm watching now, is "The Fugitive," (1963-67) and it greatly influenced my thoughts on this.

The only thing better than a dead human is a producing human. Turn violent offenders into producers over time who'll spend their life sentences giving back in some very significant way to the families of the people they harmed. Life-long community service in some very specialized way that improves the lives of those left behind.

You are advocating slavery.

ruveyn

Dear Skeksis, I like it...how do we implement it though? Every work program tried in American history has turned into slave labor, horrible abuses, murder. If there is any way to get something going where incarcerated people's labor was successfully used to help the victims or their families, tell me how to get it set up...do you know of any such program that is really working? Sylkat