Capital Punishment For Murderers

[Poofler]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this does not matter at all. Justice cannot have a price. Whatever it costs, it's the price the community has to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Justice most certainly has a price. That price is paid every day by inequality in resources and meaningful time delays under a system with finite resources provided by the community (taxes). Nor do we pay 60% of our income in taxes so law enforcement can catch that last marginal criminal. "Justice" vs. "Dollar" decisions are very real and practiced considerations.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5) Yes, most families feel better.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a misconception that most people seem to have, so I just wanted to point out that it is not actually true in most cases. .... [Oklahoma City Bombing]

[/ QUOTE ]

One example is proof for "most cases"? Moreover, it's not even a good example. When someone kills in mass, it's hard for each victim's family to truly feel the personal connection to the punishment that would be necessary to achieve vengeance or closure. It's just a news headline that your family happened to be collaterally involved in. The truth is, there is no "justice" for situations like this. So you're just stating the obvious when you say the victim's families didn't feel satisfied.

Personally, I think things that would be referred to as "cruel and unusual" punishment should be legal options (particularly for situations such as McVeigh, where the painless ending his life does very little to avenge the horror he caused).

[wheatrich]

1. No
Nobody has ever thought about the punishment regarding certain crimes before committing them. Everyone thinks they won't get caught therefore punishment for crimes is completely meaningless as a deterrence. (especially so from a life vs death sentence difference--is there really one in a criminal's mind? I doubt it)

2. I hope not. It's very rare for a person to change who they are.

3. Depending on court costs I think life is cheaper than death in some states (heck maybe all with the appeals process).

4. Yes, there's always more than a micro chance. The prosecution is hell bent on a conviction and especially if the defense is under funded and/or overworked that a jury would be easily mislead to a wrong conclusion if that's the case.

I'd support life because of these factors as long as the chance of parole (unless they are proven innocent)/escape is as minimal as possible but I certainly don't oppose death penalty for people that we can prove 100% committed such an offense worthy of it.

edit--of course what 100% consitutes varies greatly from person to person

[gdaily]

Capital Punishment has a couple of drawbacks:

A) A lot more murderers will go free in society! Why? Well, if the court feels that it need to be 100% sure to kill the prisoners, every now and then a murdrere will not be found guilty, because of fear of a 1% mistake. But that 1% risk is ok to take if locking in someone for good...

B) A murderer will not fear killing again, for example the polices chasing him, since he is "already dead"

C) A few killersa uses the Capital Punishment as "suicide by others", letting the police/court kill them instead of comitting suicide

D) I myself would fear living in a small box for 50+ years more than being killed...

Sorry for my bad english, but I hope you understand my points.

[Divad Yksnal]

Bad reasons:
[ QUOTE ]
1. Its Barbaric

[/ QUOTE ]

It's debatable whether or not capital punishment can be considered "barbaric".

Do you disagree with the general idea of banning "cruel (1) and unusual punishment" as the U.S 8th Ammendment (and many other countries constitutions) do?


Notes: (1)first internet definition of barbaric was cruel, see:

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/barbaric.html

though the second definiton fits more with the roots of the word" "uncivilized: uncivilized or unsophisticated when compared to highly developed civilizations"

DY

[Dot_the_Bot]

From what Ive read so far, I have to say Im very in agreement with fasteddy.

1. Current statistics lead one to believe that the death penalty doesn't deter people from committing capital crimes at all.

2. From what I know of life sentences, they can be worked off. I think Nevada statutes have a mandatory 30 years, no matter how good the behavior (for the level that crimes which would get the death penalty fall under). But the sentencing can give multiple life sentences to run in succession- so then 3 life sentences would be a minimum 90 years.

3. I think fasteddy has a valid point here. The legal battle required to put someone to death is pretty hefty- and defendants sentenced to death receive free legal representation throughout the process. That said, I dont know if it comes out anywhere near housing a convict for the rest of their life... I cant imagine it does.

4. Damn straight there is. I dont remember which state, but two years ago a govenor pardoned all of death row because dna tests showed that 19% of prisoners they had put to death in prior years were innocent of the crime to which they were sentenced.

The lawbooks have not been altered as a result of dna evidence. The burden of proof on the state is still the same as it was before dna tests...and bear in mind THE STATE is who is doing the dna testing in the first place.

Also, I question the obvious race and gender biases of death sentences. There is a noticably higher percentage of minorities sentenced to death than are convicted of capital crimes- and women are almost NEVER convicted to death.

mikechop's #5: I don't agree with providing the death penalty for the purpose of appeasing the family of the victim's. It has to many weird moral implications and does just as much to counter any purpose it may serve- imo.

[Matt Ruff]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're reluctant to execute somebody because you think they might be innocent, shouldn't you be equally reluctant to send them to prison for life?

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Surveys and statistics have shown that it does not discourage people from killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what survey that is... Is it a survey of murderers, or a survey of people who are planning to murder??

To ask what preventive impact Capital Punishment has is asking one to prove a negative. Of course, such is the nature of preventive "anything".

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the years, Texas has sentenced more people convicted of a capital crime to death than any other state. They have also shown one of the largest increases in capital crimes committed over the course of those same years.

Im not saying that means that the death penalty didn't deter people from committing capital crimes in Texas...it could be something in the water.

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a bit of a dangerous notion, though, as it might lead states to decide to make additional currently non-capital crimes, capital instead, in order to save money.)


[/ QUOTE ]

lol...I want to be at that state senate meeting. "Given the way people proven guilty of heroin addiction just end up back in jail over and over...it would financially behoove us to elevate it to the level of a capital crime so that we can just inject them once and for all. All in favor say ay!"

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think victim's families feelings are a good reason for capital punishment. I'm assuming the default is to wish to see it carried out and if they disagree, I'm sure most governors would be grant clemency.

Economic considerations either way seem to me to be awful arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

The victim's family's feelings are a very bad reason to kill someone. Often, they want to see someone killed out of a (understandable) desire for revenge. However, after the executiion, there loved one is still gone, and they usually don't feel much better.