Death Penalty - Your Comments

[CU_AMiGA]

Hello,

Me and Sumner7 are involved in a debate concerning the death penalty (for college work). We are argueing against it in this case. We have done some research of the history and the controversial issues of the death penalty. But i am posting here to ask what are the people's opinion on the death penalty. I would also be grateful for anyone who posts any other facts and figures to back up the arguement, either side of the arguement. Thank you for your time. :-)

Best Regards,

[PMC]

The death penalty has one drawback - it's permanent.

Miscarriages of justice do happen, but you can't bring someone back from the dead.  Personally, I view the concept of the state taking a life from anyone with extreme distaste.  

[bloodline]

PMC wrote:
The death penalty has one drawback - it's permanent.

Miscarriages of justice do happen, but you can't bring someone back from the dead.  Personally, I view the concept of the state taking a life from anyone with extreme distaste.  

Anyone taking another persons life is distasteful.

[Karlos]

PMC wrote:
The death penalty has one drawback - it's permanent.

Miscarriages of justice do happen, but you can't bring someone back from the dead.  Personally, I view the concept of the state taking a life from anyone with extreme distaste.  

Furthermore, nobody is ever really held accountable for said miscarriages, save in the cases of false testimony (or at least I would imagine). Not that they really could be - one can hardly convict the jury / judge of manslaughter.

Another question you could ask yourself include, does it really work as a deterrant? Do places that implement the death penalty have a lower incidence of those crimes that warrant it relative to those (socially/culturally comparable places) that dont?

[the_leander]

I would argue for the death penalty in some cases: such as genocide, torture and crimes against humanity.

I would do it by the following means: dumping them on an island in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by minefields so that no one can come in and rescue them. If they survive so be it, they are no longer a burden on any given society, if they die, well tough. I'd give them enough food for one month, a cyanide tablet and a firm shove out of the side of the helicopter.

Let nature take its course with these scumbags, we at least would be giving them a sporting chance.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

It's too easy to hate, and too hard to forgive
ppl who did these atrocities, were mostly heavily mentally influenced by the phenomenon war. War is a mental disease, a shortcoming. When a war begins, suddenly the almost genetical cultural aspects of humans, as feelings towards other ppl are kinda disabled. A human becomes a thing. This happens to two sides and they influence each other to hate the other side, like a flywheel. Hatred of other the other side's committed atrocities, initiating even more gruesome atrocities being committed.
Instead of the self-loving thought "I would never do such a thing, so punish that monster as gruesome as possible", better calm ppl down with reason when you see it happening to begin, or offer a place for refugees. Or try to flee the place asap if you want to stay alive.

No, for real prevention of war (and the atrocities committed in a war) the male part of the lower class, with lower EQ and IQ should be castrated ;-)

oh, and btw, death penalty?
never. (mostly for the reasons mentioned by Karlos)

[the_leander]

I do not hate these people, I pity them, because in all their hate and ignorance, they are unable to apreciate true beauty.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

the_leander wrote:
I do not hate these people, I pity them,

And therefore, you're "dumping them on an island in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by minefields so that no one can come in and rescue them."
You know, what I wanted to say that you're taking it from the wrong side of the story. Wich they did too, in their frenzy.
You are/want to be Zen, right?
Then you have to see these things from a certain distance to act correctly.

they are unable to apreciate true beauty.

The major part of the world is unable to appreciate true beauty.
I pity myself more about that than I pity them (considering their louthmouthedness), they live quite happy in their ignorance it seems...

[the_leander]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

the_leander wrote:
I do not hate these people, I pity them,

And therefore, you're "dumping them on an island in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by minefields so that no one can come in and rescue them."
You know, what I wanted to say that you're taking it from the wrong side of the story. Wich they did too, in their frenzy.
You are/want to be Zen, right?
Then you have to see these things from a certain distance to act correctly.

No, I would give them the chance to live under their own steam away from the rest of society, if they were unable to do so, or unwilling to do so, then nature would take its course. It also means that no one else has to deal with the mental impact of taking another life. Its cold, I know, but it at least gives them a far greater chance of living out the rest of their lives in such a way that doesn't cost us anything and doesn't effect us after the fact. The minefields are there to maintain their exile, nothing more.

It offers them a chance, which is much more then many of them ever gave their victims. I'm not saying its perfect, but it would be very effective.

they are unable to apreciate true beauty.

The major part of the world is unable to appreciate true beauty.
I pity myself more about that than I pity them (considering their louthmouthedness), they live quite happy in their ignorance it seems...[/quote]

Ignorance kills, and depending on how powerfull the ignorant are how many are killed by it.

[odin]

PMC wrote:
The death penalty has one drawback - it's permanent.

Miscarriages of justice do happen, but you can't bring someone back from the dead.  Personally, I view the concept of the state taking a life from anyone with extreme distaste.  

I agree wholeheartedly with this stance. A single life taken for a crime not comitted by the convicted is enough reason for me to be against the death penalty. Not a single penal system is watertight enough to guarantee this will not happen.

[X-ray]

There seem to be two reasons why people are against the death penalty:

1) Objection to the taking of a life (even if he is guilty) on moral grounds.
2) Objection to the death penalty because of the possibility that an innocent life is taken in error.

My thoughts on (1):

If the guy is guilty (and for the sake of my argument in point (1) I am going to stipulate that he is guilty), I don't have a problem with the death penalty for the following crimes:

Murder (1st degree, planned)
Rape
Child molestation

There are no mitigating circumstances for these crimes, and any individual who commits one of those three crimes forfeits his right to his place in society immediately. He knows the risk before he does it. You don't put down all your chips on one number at the roulette wheel and then cry when you lose. You don't reach out for those chips afterwards. They are gone. If you were concerned about losing them, you should not have bet them in the first place.

My thoughts on (2):

This is entirely a matter of evidence. It comes down to whether the evidence against the accused is relevant and is of the required quality. And I agree that mistakes do happen, whether they happen at the time that evidence is collected, or the time that evidence is analysed, or the time that the analysis of the evidence is presented. The evidence has to be unshakeable. This is a real concern. At the moment one form of evidence that I think is unshakeable is DNA evidence. And even so, to protect against mistakes related to evidence handling (or even nefarious laboratory activity) I would say independent DNA testing (by the defense team) would be required if there was to be confidence in the analysis. Ironically it is DNA evidence that has CLEARED many of the people who have been wrongfully executed. I suppose as regards (2) I would be more concerned about the kind of evidence that is being used to convict the accused. If the guy is caught in the act, arrested and confesses, I think that is good enough evidence to convict him. But I acknowledge that there are many cases where I would not be happy to see someone convicted, based on the quality and type of evidence being presented.

[KennyR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4219627.stm

[T_Bone]

The death penalty is such a boring subject. It's always discussed as if it were an epidemic problem when in all reality it's way way down at the bottom of the list. People writing papers on the subject, etc.

Why not write a paper on something that has less shock value but more real relevance to peoples lives, like, I don't know, seatbelts.

Or, here's something that hasn't quite made a stink yet, how about the return of the debtors prison? Yep, it's back, and it's starting to become more common.

[Turambar]

Debtors prison eh? Can you put the government in one of them?

[X-ray]

@ Kenny

Kenny Richey didn't do himself any favours by being pissed out of his head and smoking hashish on the night of the fire. Even the defense attorney's opening statement pretty much describes Richey as a Chav.

"...We're going to show you a society here that accepts no responsibility; that lives for the joy of drinking alcohol; that lives for the joy of taking different types of drugs. And, I'm not exempting Kenny from that group either..."

He goes on (the defense attorney) to say that the people who were always partying together had no income other than support, and many of them had criminal records that he thought was a contributing factor in their income. (He wanted to discredit witnesses and use Richey's drunken state as a defense)

Perhaps Kenny got set a bad example by his brother:

"..Tom Richey is serving a 65-year sentence for shooting dead a shop assistant while high on drugs..."

from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4208175.stm

But the person who really needs her arse kicked is Hope Collins, who left her 2-year-old in Richey's care in the first place.

I'd like to know what the apparent 'flaws' in the original trial are, because I've read the first 70 pages of the transcript but the whole thing is 1334 pages  :-o

Would be nice to see where they went wrong, and go back to the original, just concentrating on the flaws.