Capital Punishment For Murderers

[LouBlue]

I disagree. There are many cases in which you can be 100% certain that someone is guilty. But the lack of 100% certitude can't be a reason not to make a decision. For some, there's often a 1% doubt that arises simply because we're human and question our decisions. If I'm 99.5% certain that a man assaulted and murdered a number of women over a period of several years... I have DNA evidence, other material evidence including notes that lead back to him that he has left for the FBI, and ultimately when he's captured he confesses and describes his crimes in detail ... You're arguing that this person has the right to live out the remainder of his life relatively comfortably in prison? (No, prison isn't a cakewalk, but it might startle you to know that many commit crimes when they get out because they like life better in prison then they do on the streets. They feel more secure there and know they have a warm place to sleep, 3 meals, and medical care.)


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5) Will the death sentence make the victim's family feel better.

[/ QUOTE ]

This dilema isn't some poker problem you can solve with some nice little formula. Killing people is wrong, you can never be 100% sure they are guilty, and it in no way acts as a deterant.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Trebor the Mad Overlord]

I have given this issue a great deal of thought over the years, and have come to the opinion that the death penalty cannot be supported, for the following reasons:

1) We can never be 100% sure that the defendant is guilty. Eyewitnesses make mistakes (much more often than you'd think), policemen, forensics investigators and prosecutors who are convinced that the defendant is guilty can withhold or distort evidence (sometimes without even being aware that they are doing it), and so on. And then there's out-and-out perjury (on behalf of both sides), which is so common that lawyers have a word for it - "testilying". Human beings are fallible creatures.

2) The death penalty is not reversible. Once you've killed someone, you can't bring them back if you later discover they didn't do the deed. If the poor sap's been rotting in jail for 20 years, at least you can make partial amends.

3) It precludes the possibility of redemption. Yes, he might be a depraved killer, but he might still have the possibility of making a positive contribution to society. A possible example: Stanley "Tookie" Williams (though his actions may have been an attempt to avoid execution).

4) The inadequacy of punishment. My personal belief is that for the truly guilty and beyond redemption, being stuck in a jail cell for 50 years is worse than being executed. My personal nightmare is that for the truly innocent, it may also be worse than being executed.

If it were up to me, I would make the maximum penalty life without parole, or perhaps a long period before parole could even be considered. I would also insist that the evidence collected in such cases be preserved so that it can be reviewed as new technology is developed.

On a personal level, I think the procedural roadblocks that the Supreme Court has in recent years placed in the way of people on Death Row getting their cases reviewed when new evidence or scientific techniques come to light that cast doubt upon their convictions to be deeply shameful.

[sandycove]

The elementary difficulty is that capital punishment IS a high-falutin’ philosophy problem.

Capital punishment is a social matter. It’s not really about the punishment of a particular murderer (assuming he has been fairly judged), or a victim (whose criminal rights have expired, by definition, although unsatisfying civil remedies might still apply).

The essence of the question is the conflict between society’s entitlement to justice versus real or perceived damage to the community’s collective soul. Matters of fundamental cultural standards can’t be reduced to clerical details.

I once asked Robert Docking, the brilliant governor of Kansas from 1967 until 1975, if he had changed any view on a basic issue as a result of his long experience in office. He said, just one: He no longer favoured capital punishment. He cited the influence of Dr. Karl Menninger, who wrote “The Crime of Punishment.”

My view is that capital punishment is just. I am less certain that it is moral.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does it cost more to keep him alive?


[/ QUOTE ]

What a wonderful reason for making a life and death decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better than most I've heard. Although executing someone is pretty damned expensive too. Especially when they have a life threatening disease like cancer or something during the years awaiting execution.

[Acein8ter]

If someone committed murder and there are witneses (He is 100% guilty), he should be executed asap. Taxpayers in any state should not have to flip the bill for his life in prison for an extra month or for the remainder of his/her life.

[sandycove]

Another profound (and high-falutin' philosophical) point of view is well represented by Sogyal Rinpoche in "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying."

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone committed murder and there are witneses (He is 100% guilty), he should be executed asap. Taxpayers in any state should not have to flip the bill for his life in prison for an extra month or for the remainder of his/her life.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many witnesses equates to 100% guilty? What if he fled the scene of the crime and it becomes possible that the guy picked out of the lineup only looks similar to the perp? Isn't the whole point of a trial to determine the likelihood of guilt? How do we call someone 100% guilty without a trial?

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone committed murder and there are witneses (He is 100% guilty), he should be executed asap. Taxpayers in any state should not have to flip the bill for his life in prison for an extra month or for the remainder of his/her life.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, you favor the lynch mob mentality? How evolved.

AB

[DoGMaTiCMD]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the issue can be decided without emotions or high falootin philosophy or religion. Assuming we are talking about cold blooded murders, committed by "sane" defendents, I see the following four things as objective reasons to be for or against the punishment, as opposed to life without parole.

1. Will it dissuade others from committing murder?

2. Is there more than a micro chance that the life sentence will allow an eventual release or escape?

3. Does it cost more to keep him alive?

4. Is there more than a micro chance that the defendent is innocent?

There may be other factors that deserve consideration that I haven't thought of but I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can people ..decide... whether or not to end ANYONE's life? "He killed people, I would never do such a thing, so LETS KILL HIM BACK"

If you or any number of people believe a man deserves to die, thats fine, but opinions and beliefs are NOT sufficient to justify ending a person's life. ..Ending someone's life is such a huge deal. Taking away their very consciousness, is NOT our decision to make. We are fallible, as are all of our opinions, as are all of our decisions. Removing their existence from the world we share is a horrible thing to presume yourself capable of rightly doing.

... this post IMO is rediculous in every way that I believe matters.

[TheCobra]

<font color="blue"> </font>
Many have stated on here that capital punishment does not disuade people from committing murder ... true for those who did commit murder, but can we be sure it hasn't disuaded the rest of us (society)? Would you drive 100 mph if there was no punishment? Would you baseball bat some car windows if there was no punishment? Would you clothesline someone that just gave you a bad beat? Is murder far worse than all of those? By who's definition? Is killing a murderer murder? Is killing a terriorist murder?