CONVICTION: WHO THE [censored] DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ANYWAY?

[hyde]

The death penalty. Justice or Revenge?
Tough question it seems, powerfully emotional arguments ensue.
Eye for an eye?
What if it were your child?
Deterrence?

The title of my post probably gives away my position....I feel very strongly about it.
If you accept the existence of God I think you give HIM the power to give or take life.
If it were my child.......I would be hard pressed not to respond with terminal violence given the chance. Emotions run strong and can overrule an intellectual, objective response.
Deterrence? I'm pretty sure it has been accepted that murderers are not deterred by expected punishment.

I read a piece by a prison counselor who was asked how he could work with murderers and rapists each day, his response was " even bad people are not bad ALL the time."
In everyday life we encounter Aholes who are not Aholes ALL the time.
We are all born with different wiring, some wirings are more difficult than others to harness. Some with more intellectual capacity than others. Which raises a question for another time....are those with more intellectual capacity OBLIGATED to help the less fortunate? Which raises another question for another time.........Nature VS Nurture?

Sorry, strong coffee this morning. Back to the death penalty. I can not see how any human being can be so presumptuous as to think they can take the life of another.
No safety argument allowed. Life without parole is available. No monetary argument allowed. More is spent on death row appeals than housing. Plus putting a monetary number on a life is a little harsh isn't it?

I think the USA is currently 2:1 in favor of the death penalty. is it a slow moving shift because of the emotion of imagining if it were your child? What kind of legal decisions should be made because of emotions? Shouldn't legal 'stuff' be as objective as possible?

end/ rambling rant
thank you for you time,
hyde

[4_2_it]

Most death penalty supporters would argue that deterrence is a side effect. Punishment is the reason I support the death penalty. Animals that rape, torture and kill children should be put to death. Why should Charles Manson be a celebrity for life, while Sharon Tate and her unborn child are dust in a California cemetery? Justice is something that most Americans feel very strongly about and that is unlikely to change in our lifetime.

That's not to say that the system can't be reformed or improved. The death penalty should be a last resort reserved for perpetrators of heinous crimes where there is no doubt of the guilt of the accused.

[diebitter]

I agree. It shouldn't be used as a matter of course or routine, but some people just deserve to die.

[dcasper70]

Recently there was a triple slaying 5 miles from my house that made national headlines, only the father survived. In the few days since the event, I have thought about what I'd do in his place.
Prosecuter has decided to seek the death penalty.

I'd want them to suffer for a long, long time. Death is too easy a way out. I'd like these people to have one appeal, and I'd like them to have good competent lawyers handling it. I'd want complete certainty that the wrong person doesn't get convicted. When final, I'd like them to be forgotten.

I'd want them in a hole for 23.5 hours a day, the other half hour in a 30 foot long, 5 foot wide area with 20 foot walls, at night. I'd want them to have zero human interaction, slide food to them via dumb waiter.
I'd like them to slowly go insane.

This is pretty close to life on Death Row as it is now, minus all the appeals. Just take it a little step further.


There are a select few who should just die though, like judge say's guilty and they have to put their head over a bucket while a guy in a black hood walks in. These are the upper crust though, the Dahmer's, bin Laden's, Manson's of the world.

The current system is certainly not a deterrent.

[MrWookie]

It's human nature to want vengeance. That much we cannot help. The desire is strong, and it permeates most discussion of the death penalty. Still, the arguments I've seen have pretty clearly indicated that the death penalty is not fair, cost effective, accurate (in that the people who get killed are actually guilty), or deterring. It just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Sure, we want to keep it for the true monsters, but who decides who they are? Is it the guys who kill at least N people? The guys who torture their victims? The people who rape them before killing them? Maybe just when black men kill white women?

[4_2_it]

Wookie,

I'd reserve it for people convicted of 1st degree murder who kill (or cause to be killed -- aka drug lords & mafia bosses) more than one person or if for a single murder if the victim was sexually molested or is a child.

I'd also require a higher burden of proof (for the penalty, not a conviction) and only let a judge impose it. I would only allow one appeal set of appeals directly to the state's Supreme Court with an option to the appeal to the US Supreme Court.

This would go hand in hand with my plan to abolish parole as we know it and require all criminals to fully serve their sentences (I'd allot some time off for good behavior).

[MrWookie]

42,

Would you go for death of EVERY person who kills more than one person, and EVERY person who kills a child, or would you pick and choose? How do you pick and choose? Does the US Supreme Court ever deal w/ murder cases?

I'm also not convinced that a judge will be less biased than 12 of my peers, and how is time off for good behavior different from the parole we have now?

[Borodog]

I am not opposed to the death penalty per se, i.e. killin' people that need killin', but I am 100% opposed to giving government, which demonstrably cannot do a single [censored] thing right, the power of legitimate murder people.

It is inevitable that government incompetence leads to innocent people being put to death.

[Shadowrun]

And letting the government lock someone up for their life is much better (again innocent people will be locked up)?

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
42,

Would you go for death of EVERY person who kills more than one person, and EVERY person who kills a child, or would you pick and choose? How do you pick and choose? Does the US Supreme Court ever deal w/ murder cases?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't pick and choose. If someone premeditates to kill more than one person or a child or sexually assault someone and kill them then death it is. Again, I am limiting this to those convicted of Murder 1, not manslaughter or murder 2.

The Supreme Court has the power to stay any execution. They typical do not, but most death row do get to file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also not convinced that a judge will be less biased than 12 of my peers, and how is time off for good behavior different from the parole we have now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd much rather trust a judge than 12 people who predominatly fall into one of the following categories:

1) Housewife/househusband
2) Gov't worker
3) Unemployed

I believe that now prisoners are given time off for things unrelated to good behavior (overcrowding, type of crime, etc -- See Paris Hilton).

Boro -- You are correct as of now. Of course, after I am elected President and reduce the federal government to levels last seen in the George Washington era while governing with a Teddy Roosevelt flair, I do not believe that an innocent person will have any need to be alarmed.

I am not foolish enough to believe that the status quo is likely to change in my lifetime because the people most qualified for public office either have no desire to serve or no chance to get elected in the current corrupt system.