Capital Punishment

[tnuac]

Yep, its a serious topic. I recently had an informal debate about it, and I just want to see what people think regarding it. In the debate we reach these points:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOR:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Discourages criminals from commiting murder

 

 

 

- Prison cells now have digital television and are far too comftorble

 

 

 

- The obvious one, deserve to suffer for what they did

 

 

 

- Some murder cases have a 7 year sentance..that is nothing.

 

 

 

- Criminals might enjoy the horrible atmosphere in jails and continue to bully

 

 

 

- When they criminals come out, they can just murder again

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure I've forgotten some

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGAINST:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Could kill innocent people, as can be seen in intensive court cases

 

 

 

- Instead of discouraging crimnals, it could make them seek revenge

 

 

 

- Why solve murder with murder? You have 2 innocent families in mourning

 

 

 

- If you really want criminals to suffer, prison can be a horrible place with bullying and seculdedness from the outside world

 

 

 

- Being in a cell gives the criminal time to be choked in guilt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course those points are cut very short and can easily be expanded on. Without repeating exactly what I said, what is your view on capital punishment? Do you think it should be re-established or are do you strongly oppose the idea?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For me, it is hard to say whether it should be brought back. Criminals would suffer in jail and second murder is unjustified, but it would probably cut murder rates down by a lot. Even though it may be immoral, it reduces the risk of break outs and serious revenge-taking, and jail space cannot run out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So please, offer your opinion. Do not start flaming about it..I covered both sides. I just really want to know what people's opinions are.

[indy500fan]

murder is something that animals do. what distiction we have from animals is that we know it is wrong. if someone commits murder, they are nothing more than an animal, and have the same rights as such. none. if the people who are the legal representatives the victim say they want the murder killed, its their choice. if they want him as a slave, its their choice. they now can do what ever they want to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thats my viewpoint, anyways :D

[logic-is-overrated]

I'm against it because it's expensive. But if it wasn't so expensive I'd be for it. I would say they should review a persons case at least 3 times to be sure he did it then kill em.

[knives669]

"Eye for an eye" is what I say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they start using capital punishment again, I think it would reduce the number of murders committed, plus, prisons won't be so crowded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying that they should immediately kill everyone who has been accused of murder. They should be very responsible with it and have undeniable proof that the person committed the murder before they sentence that person to death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If people think that they'll have a greater chance of dying, instead of thinking that they'll get off with a light sentence or unpunished if they have a good lawyer, maybe some people will think twice before killing someone else.

[Bubsa]

"Eye for an eye" is what I say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I'm not even a Christian, but I'm sick beyond belief the amount of times I hear/read this from people who have clearly misinterpreted the context it's used in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I may be rather synical, one arguement against capital punishment I take from the "Return of Jafar":

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are things far more worse than death

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really do believe that some people don't deserve the 'get-out' clause of death for what they've done. They should be made to live with it and suffer. I may be a hypocrite for this point of view, but make what you will.

[knives669]

 

"Eye for an eye" is what I say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I'm not even a Christian, but I'm sick beyond belief the amount of times I hear/read this from people who have clearly misinterpreted the context it's used in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I may be rather synical, one arguement against capital punishment I take from the "Return of Jafar":

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are things far more worse than death

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really do believe that some people don't deserve the 'get-out' clause of death for what they've done. They should be made to live with it and suffer. I may be a hypocrite for this point of view, but make what you will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think there are some people (those who get joy out of murder and sorrow) who will never ever feel sorry or regret what they've done, no matter how long they sit in prison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry if I angered you with my first statement. Could you please tell me how I misinterpretted it? (I'm not trying to start an argument or a flame war. Just curious.)

[Bubsa]

Well, it was a bit rich coming from me, seeing as I don't even study Christianity :lol:

 

 

 

But, I've been told by many Christians that the "eye for an eye" speech isn't actually instigating revenge as in "kill a killer". It is actually the antithesis; it's meant to be a deterrent for such a thing (because the whole context of the speech is sarcastic...or something. A real Christian should clear this up for me :P)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could be wrong but it's just what I've heard, so sorry if I offended you too knives :P

[knives669]

Well, it was a bit rich coming from me, seeing as I don't even study Christianity :lol:

 

 

 

But, I've been told by many Christians that the "eye for an eye" speech isn't actually instigating revenge as in "kill a killer". It is actually the antithesis; it's meant to be a deterrent for such a thing (because the whole context of the speech is sarcastic...or something. A real Christian should clear this up for me :P)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could be wrong but it's just what I've heard, so sorry if I offended you too knives :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's quite alright, Bubsa. :P (Currently looking up Babylonian law on Wikipedia) I don't study Christianity myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I DO know that it originated in the Code of Hammurabi. What I have gathered is that it was taken literally in Babylonian law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury. Often the retribution would be much worse than the crime; it was often death. Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, Christianity made it into an antithesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the New Testament, Jesus admonishes his followers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, I do believe we were both kinda right. :)

[tnuac]

hmm k..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

murder is something that animals do. what distiction we have from animals is that we know it is wrong. if someone commits murder, they are nothing more than an animal, and have the same rights as such. none. if the people who are the legal representatives the victim say they want the murder killed, its their choice. if they want him as a slave, its their choice. they now can do what ever they want to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is a very good point. A murderer should never have the choice of what to do and the victims relatives should decide what happens. Problem is, they may be to upset and it could make loss worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm against it because it's expensive. But if it wasn't so expensive I'd be for it. I would say they should review a persons case at least 3 times to be sure he did it then kill em.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expensive? Surely it can't be more expensive than food bills, television bills, and all the other luxuries they get.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If religion gets involved, it will get excessively complicated. "eye for an eye" is a very debateable phrase.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think there are some people (those who get joy out of murder and sorrow) who will never ever feel sorry or regret what they've done, no matter how long they sit in prison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is very true. Many murderers feel no remorse for what they did and laugh in the face of the distressed families. A case in the UK happened like that recently. Death and pain might be the best way out for a lot of the people, mainly because it is the worst option for them.

[Bubsa]

Interesting stuff knives, thanks for posting it! :D

[Lionheart_0]

Its a waste of a life, but so is keeping a person in prison. I say make them work the rest of their sentence (well if its for life, perhaps to the age of like 65), so that way they can live out their life productively.

[logic-is-overrated]

Its a waste of a life, but so is keeping a person in prison. I say make them work the rest of their sentence (well if its for life, perhaps to the age of like 65), so that way they can live out their life productively.

I really like the idea of putting lifers/death rows to work building stuff or something like that. And to the guy up there, yes, I don't know why but capital punishment is way more expensive then life in jail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

either that or eat em

[insane]

Well, it was a bit rich coming from me, seeing as I don't even study Christianity :lol:

 

 

 

But, I've been told by many Christians that the "eye for an eye" speech isn't actually instigating revenge as in "kill a killer". It is actually the antithesis; it's meant to be a deterrent for such a thing (because the whole context of the speech is sarcastic...or something. A real Christian should clear this up for me :P)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could be wrong but it's just what I've heard, so sorry if I offended you too knives :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hrm? Christ was all about the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... that hardly speaks eye-for-an-eye IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am for capital punishment, but not in all cases.

[Mr_Putter]

I would say that I'm sorta for it. There's about a dozen "Dangerous Offenders" in the bottom of Kingston Federal Penitentiary in Ontario. This includes Paul Bernardo who has raped and murdered young women, and videotapes himself in the act, and Clifford Olsen, a serial killer. They will never get out on parole, so what's the point? I can see how it's nice to make them waste there lives, and its almost like torture, but wouldn't it save some tax payer money (it's something like 70 000 dollars a year to keep a Dangerous Offender in their cell...There's something like 350 in Canada [these are not exact numbers]). That adds up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And it's not like they are taking much joy from being in there, nor are the families of the people who got killed. It's kinda wrong to kill, but it might just be better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But for 99.9% of cases, capital punishment is wrong.

[knives669]

I was curious as to why capital punishment is expensive... So, I looked this up for you guys. :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE FINANCIAL COSTS OF THE DEATH PENALTY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Death penalty cases are much more expensive than other criminal cases and cost more than imprisonment for life with no possibility of parole. In California, capital trials are six times more costly than other murder trials. [1] A study in Kansas indicated that a capital trial costs $116,700 more than an ordinary murder trial.[2] Complex pre-trial motions, lengthy jury selections, and expenses for expert witnesses are all likely to add to the costs in death penalty cases. The irreversibility of the death sentence requires courts to follow heightened due process in the preparation and course of the trial. The separate sentencing phase of the trial can take even longer than the guilt or innocence phase of the trial. And defendants are much more likely to insist on a trial when they are facing a possible death sentence. After conviction, there are constitutionally mandated appeals which involve both prosecution and defense costs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of these costs occur in every case for which capital punishment is sought, regardless of the outcome. Thus, the true cost of the death penalty includes all the added expenses of the "unsuccessful" trials in which the death penalty is sought but not achieved. Moreover, if a defendant is convicted but not given the death sentence, the state will still incur the costs of life imprisonment, in addition to the increased trial expenses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. [3] In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million. [4] In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment. [5] The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually.[6]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

 

 

 

I'm just in the mood to look things up I guess. Enjoy!

[Random]

I read somewhere that capital punishment really doesn't deter people from commiting the crimes. But either way, it frees up much needed prison space for other criminals :lol:

[tnuac]

damn..I had no idea. Is there any way at all for it to cost less? Thats is amazingly high!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its a waste of a life, but so is keeping a person in prison. I say make them work the rest of their sentence (well if its for life, perhaps to the age of like 65), so that way they can live out their life productively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah yes that's something I thought a long time ago and never posted up. For some criminals, physical exhertion can be much worse than being locked with digital television, and it could really help do something for the country. The only problem is keeping them in watch but that wouldn't be too hard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At one point I thought about producing energy for the country by using some form of exercise. Now I've realised that human activity does not generate that much energy, and this topic aint about energy.

[jackalope14]

I read somewhere that capital punishment really doesn't deter people from commiting the crimes. But either way, it frees up much needed prison space for other criminals :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can read about anything now adays, and just because it talks about it doesnt mean its true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I dont really see why this is funny...

[Random]

 

I read somewhere that capital punishment really doesn't deter people from commiting the crimes. But either way, it frees up much needed prison space for other criminals :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can read about anything now adays, and just because it talks about it doesnt mean its true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I dont really see why this is funny...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The last bit was obviously meant as a joke, but I remember where I heard of it before. It was a documentary on TV, about some women or another who's going to be excuted, during the show it also compared the crime rate for the States with capital punishment against those without, and it made no difference.

[tnuac]

thats one of the main problems..criminals will build up in jails until more and more space must be taken up. Something needs to be done to criminals instead of stacking them up like lego. Its true that in some cases capital punishment does not deter the criminals. Its not supported but its a possibilty that crime mates would just be more determined to continue murdering and commiting crime through an act of avengence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding cost, that is for the US. In the UK it might be different but I am not sure about that..

[hammerhand]

I support capital punishment it certin cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cases I support it in.

 

 

 

-When a murderer shows no remorse for their actions

 

 

 

-Genocide (or any case of mass murder)

 

 

 

-Horriendus War Crimes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cases I'm agenst it

 

 

 

-When I murderer is driven to the brink of insanity from guilt

 

 

 

-And time there is a chance, however small that the person is innocent

 

 

 

-When a person is bullied into commiting crimes, this would normally be war crimes. In that case the bully would answer for the crimes.

[rocketman089]

My tax money shouldn't be going anywhere near to housing and feeding a serial raper and murderer who commited crimes against 8 year old girls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Someone mentioned cost, but is there really that big of a difference between a formal execution's cost and feeding/housing/babysitting a prisoner for 20 to 50 years?)

[logic-is-overrated]

My(Someone mentioned cost, but is there really that big of a difference between a formal execution's cost and feeding/housing/babysitting a prisoner for 20 to 50 years?)

It's 3-5 times more expensive for a formal execution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only reasonable alternative to killing them is to eat them.

[knives669]

 

My(Someone mentioned cost, but is there really that big of a difference between a formal execution's cost and feeding/housing/babysitting a prisoner for 20 to 50 years?)

It's 3-5 times more expensive for a formal execution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only reasonable alternative to killing them is to eat them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol. Do you honestly think they would taste good?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would much prefer my tax dollars to go to punishing a serial murderer/rapist than feeding them for the rest of their lives. But, it is a fact that formal executions are more expensive than life in prison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They should find a way to make it less expensive...

[mad4u689]

Alright, the death penalty is something I care deeply about, and am currently working to change. (Hopefully we can get the death penalty to be abolished in Connecticut within a few years :D) I am certain

 

 

 

ly AGAINST the death penalty and FOR abolition of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral Issues

 

 

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Issues

 

 

 

A great deal of studies conducted in MANY different states (Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, North Carolia, Florida, California, Texas) (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... rom%20DPIC which has links to individual state reports) find that the costs of having the death penalty are extremely high. "Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to an approximate cost of $24 million for each execution." This translates to over a billion dollars the US government could have saved since 1976 by NOT having the death penalty as an option. These sobering statistics are even scarier if you consider states like Connecticut, which has only had one execution in the past forty years, but still maintains that high cost of keeping the death penalty open.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, this means that taxpayers are paying a LOT of money for executions that never occur - money that could be going to education, etc! Popular misconception holds that it's cheaper to execute someone than to put them in jail for life; this simply isn't true, because you can't only look at the cost of using an electric chair and the cost of food for life. The great bulk of costs are accumulated at trial level... and you can't just knock out the trial level, because we have a little something called the judicial system that does its best to make sure someone is guilty before punishing them for a crime they may not have committed. Which brings me to my next point...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the innocent ones?

 

 

 

There have been 21 people sentenced to death row and later exonerated before they were executed. I met one of these men a couple of weeks ago, and his story was sobering - the government offered him no compensation for the 21 years of his life spent locked up for a crime he did not commit. With new technologies, new evidence is always coming in and should always be up for review in old cases. If someone is executed, there's no turning back. In most cases, it's impossible to be entirely sure of guilt - most evidence is witness testimony (very faulty due to false memories; take intro psych) and other irreliable data. Prosecutional and police misconduct is more rampant than we'd like to think. While this isn't reason to overthrow our judicial system, it IS reason to not throw away a case with no chance of ever reviewing evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Unfair" by class and race?

 

 

 

80% of the victims of crimes that land people on death row are white. 42% of the people currently on death row are black, and another 10% Hispanic. This is clearly disproportionate fr om the overall population. Yes, this also suggests that there may be class differences - from a sociological perspective, many blacks and hispanics are not as well-off monetarily as whites. When people can't afford good lawyers, the court appoints lawyers to them - often incompetent and not invested in the case for their own profit. This results in overwhelming unfairness in the proportion of blacks to whites being executed, especially compared to overall proportions in prison overall. Juries and judges are often subconsciously motivated by prejudice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall Consensus

 

 

 

Whether or not the death penalty is objectively morally wrong, it is clearly impractical in modern society. All developed countries in the western world have abolished the death penalty except for the United States - we stand among undeveloped countries often with dictatorships. It's time to let modernity help us improve and finally abolish the death penalty.