This is why I'm for the death penalty.

[blufish]

I'm against the death penalty, but wouldn't mind so much if the entire town of Gainesville was leveled... with extreme prejudice!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This make me remember why I put Midge on ignore in the first place.

Somehow hes not able to comprehend the fact that a process that last more than a decade and involves 5+ trials on the highest level (with expert witnesses, media attention, added attention from the system itself) is´nt comparable to one judge handing out stupid sentences for small offences on a bad day.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry I didn't know, nor did I wish to imply, you had memory problems. Be that as it may, I wonder at which level of your justice systems you think no more mistaken are made? I would have accepted fewer, but none!? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[slickss]

IMO, comments such as "he did such a horrible thing, he should die" - often referring to the murder and molestation of children - are based on hatred. I too get disgusted when I hear some of the things that are done in the world, but I think it is a bad idea to base laws on it.

As long as there is no good argument for the death penalty, e.g. it is considerably safer for the society, aside from the subjective opinion of "he deserved it", I'm against it.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you also against varying length of prison-time based on the severity of the crime? Some murderers get 40 years, while others only get 15 because their murder seemed "less bad"? Should there be one set sentence for anyone who are found guilty of having taken the life of another human being?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. I believe the death sentence clearly falls into it's own category as a punishment because it is by far the most severe and fully irreversable. So, in my admittedly subjective view, the death sentence cannot be considered as "just another level of severity of punishment".

[ QUOTE ]
And how is having a death penalty related to less evidence needed for a conviction? Its not like states where the death penalty is in place automatically convicts people based on them having a car that resembles the car at the scene of the crime, while states without a death penalty automatically demands a lot more hard evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand my point. My point is that arguments for the death penalty inevitably rely on the caveat that it will only be used when the crime is "bad enough" and their is "a very low chance of punishing someone innocent". These subjective measures are insufficient, in my view, for determination of when the death sentence will be applied. I have no doubt that the law will be used to punish people to the maximum extent possible (that's what it's there for) and when you have subjective measures determining the scope of the law you will inevitably end up with emotional reactions pushing the application of the law beyond what you think is reasonable. For virtually any murder, someone will want the murderer dead, and when faced with the prospect of telling someone that the murder of their loved one was not "severe enough", I have no doubt that most people would back down. The same goes for subjective determination of being "really very positively sure" that the defendent is guilty.

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, comments such as "he did such a horrible thing, he should die" - often referring to the murder and molestation of children - are based on hatred. I too get disgusted when I hear some of the things that are done in the world, but I think it is a bad idea to base laws on it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree. Think one of the problems when handing out punishments is that people seem to have forgotten what the murderer actually have done. To every action there is a reaction, and the worse the crie the harder the punishment. The victim can be forgotten or distanced from the trial, while the murderer is there to show his humanity and good will and all that. But we should always try to remember what it was that was taken away, an inncoent person, with maybe 50 good years left, with a loving family or other people who cared for him/her that will grieve forever because of the selfish actions of the murderer.

Handing out punishment in corrolation with the crime that the offender has been found guilty of seems very logical to me, and for some crimes I dont find any punishment but capital punishment sufficient. To the degree that any hate is involved in this on my part it is more hate towards the action itself and not necessarily the agressor, but still he have to pay for the deliberate action that he took.

When someone say "he did such a horrible thing" they are hating what he did, and "he must die" based on that action. I can honestly say that Im in favor of executing people without hating the persons, but hating the actions so much that I do not find any other punishment suitable for the people guilty of commiting the crimes.

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
For virtually any murder, someone will want the murderer dead, and when faced with the prospect of telling someone that the murder of their loved one was not "severe enough", I have no doubt that most people would back down. The same goes for subjective determination of being "really very positively sure" that the defendent is guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different when we have the death penalty than it is if we give people time in prison? Some people will argue that "how come he only got 12 years when someone last week got 50 years, or someone 2 months ago got life?". This is as much an argument against varying length of prison-sentences as it is against death penalty. With the death penalty we still have the possibility to carefully state which crimes and situations and limitations it applies to.

And "really very positively sure" also applies when we just have a prison sentence.

Your remarks doesnt seem to deal with the death penalty itself, just how the public mob react to criminals and the legal system, and I dont feel comfortable basing our laws on what some mob feels in some hypotethical situations.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Money2burn,

Are you advocating the death penalty in only cases like this where guilt is not in question and the crime is especially heinous?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I think there should be very very strict rules for being sentanced to the death penalty, but I feel that this is a very clear case where there should be no other option. Upon sentancing this guy's life should be ended as soon as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, what is the purpose of ending this murder's life? Is there anything society gains from losing another person? One thing that seems to confuse me about the death penalty is that we lose what possibly could be another member of humanity who could do positive things. One more question, in your eyes would his immediate state execution be a means of retribution on behalf of the bereaved or is it something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I had to sleep, wasn't expecting this thing to blow up like it did.

Well, it's partly retribution, and part effeciency. If he gets sentance to the death penalty I don't see much reason to drag out his execution. It costs money that we shouldn't have to pay and allows him to live longer than he deserves imo.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it's partly retribution, and part effeciency. If he gets sentance to the death penalty I don't see much reason to drag out his execution. It costs money that we shouldn't have to pay and allows him to live longer than he deserves imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the 124 innocent Americans who were found innocent and released after receiving the death sentence strongly disagree.

As pointed out earlier in this thread, the X number of trials and tedious process of death row is very necessary if you're going to use the death penalty.

[tame_deuces]

One gotta ask oneself what do you want from punishment. Do you want less hassle or revenge? Death penalties following stringent conditions are expensive, outdrawn, doesn't seem to be very effective when it comes to lowering crime and it sends a weird message ("listen children, its wrong to kill so sometimes when people do it we kill them") and I wouldn't be surprised if it gives nourishment to a more aggressive culture (though that last one I just my personal judgement speaking) since it 'idolizes' the revenge aspect of punishment.

Personally from punishment I want chances at lower crime rates, lowered chance of repeat offences (the death penalty obv rules supreme on that one), cost efficiency and lowered risk of error. In total I don't think the death penalty delivers this package in a worthwhile deal.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For virtually any murder, someone will want the murderer dead, and when faced with the prospect of telling someone that the murder of their loved one was not "severe enough", I have no doubt that most people would back down. The same goes for subjective determination of being "really very positively sure" that the defendent is guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different when we have the death penalty than it is if we give people time in prison? Some people will argue that "how come he only got 12 years when someone last week got 50 years, or someone 2 months ago got life?".

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the very first thing I addressed in my prior post. My view is based on my subjective opinion that the death sentence is not just an extension of a life in prison sentence. You're comparing apples and oranges because the death sentence is the most severe (subjectively, for sure) and is irreversable (objectively, by the way).