Death Penalty

Though I voted "yes - in some cases",...this was a tough call for me also.

I used to be a firm believer in the death penalty. But in this last year, I gained a brother in law, Nick Yarris, who is one of the most wonderful human beings I've ever met. Nick spend 23 years on death row. He was exonerated when DNA evidence proved him innocent. Nick's website

Since then, I've learned of many people who have been exonerated now because DNA evidence. This made me wonder of exactly how many innocent people have been murdered.

There should be some sort of "3 witness" rule or something - but even that gets fuzzy in the hands of lawyers. <_<

I have a hard time though with child molesters. If that crime was committed, with the evidence so overwhelming (including DNA), then I have no sympathy for what becomes of them while in the penal system.

 

In my opinion, the only thing that capitol punishment accomplishes is vengence. I don't think the State should be in the vengence business.

So, I voted no.

 

There's no evidence that the death penalty is effective as a deterrant. As states have re-instated the death penalty (after the Supreme Court lifted the morotorium), there has been no clear evidence of a drop in crime (in fact, confusingly enough, some have found a positive correlation between states with death penalties and murder rates; I'm not sure if it's possible to make any cause and effect arguments for this observation, however). I don't know why this is, but I suspect that people don't really think about the death penalty as a "real" and "concrete" when they are comitting a crime.

 

If the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent, why is our level of violent crime so much higher than Canada and Western Europe, where the "deterrent" doesn't exist?

Our criminal justice system is imperfect and innocent people are convicted all the time. Because we are fallable we will never have "beyond all doubt" standard and are stuck with "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Plus, the amount we spend on legal fees to win an execution far exceed the amount incarceration would cost for an inmates life. Death sounsd like an easy way out, I'd prefer not to spend the rest of my days in a maximum security prison.

 

The Murders per capita, or violent crime incidents per capita, are the statistics I reference. Total number of violent incidents isn't a valid comparision.

 

Well, the murder rate (i.e. murders/person) takes the population growth into account. But I'll agree that there are a TON of other effects that are hard to take into effect when you're doing the study.

I would say that there is absolutely no convincing evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent. I think that, if one wants to use "deterrent" as an argument for the death penalty, then I would argue that the burden is on them to show evidence that it is a deterrent; I don't think that myself, as an anti-death penalty person has a requirement to show it's not a deterrent.

I think that, even if you don't think that evidence shows anything conclusively, it leans toward the "not a deterrent" side. That's far from proof but, as I said, I don't think my side of the argument is subject to the burden of proof.

 

I think the Death Penalty is something that is probably archaic in its' current form.

A life for a life does not work, it will not stop another individual who is in the heat of an argument or the guy running from the cops, or the greedy sod that wants to off his wife for an inheritance (and yes women will also murder).

But what about the serial rapist, child molester?? These folks will not "get better", what do they contribute??

Then there is the question of guilt, DNA is excellent, eye witness not so good. Before you take another person's life for any reason you have to be sure it is the "right" thing to do.

 

Looks like I'm the "Not Sure" guy here.

As much as I would like to react to the emotional side of retribution and say YES, I am doubtful of the deterrent factor as well.

That being the case, I think I would rather see the criminal put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. Let them dwell on their actions over and over, and then dwell on the consequenses. Finally, they can dwell on their upcoming disposition in their afterlife.

On the other hand, should we, as tax payers, have to foot the bill to keep him alive while he exhausts the multitude of costly legal measures?

I don't know.

 

A life for a life, thats fair. You kill, you die.

 

Ah! You've allowed me to bring up one of my favorite facts about the death penalty. From a purely financial argrument, it costs more (on average) to put someone to death than it does to have them in jail for life. This comes from the cost of court appeals, etc. etc.

I've said it earlier, and I'll say it again: in my mind, the only reasonable justification for the death penalty is vengance.

 

Hey, not all us libs think that the people in jail deserve cable =) I'd love to have inmates doing 'useful' work - I think it should be required. Prisons should have to support themselves more than they do now - cutting expenses back to solid minimal levels, and allowing 'extras' only through good behavior and labor contributions.

I would *prefer* not to use the death penalty, or at least would prefer to give them a choice between death and a life of labor, but I'm certainly not an activist over it, and chalk it up to a states rights issue. My biggest problem (may someday soon be a problem of the past) is the idea that every once in a while, someone slips through the cracks, and the USofA executes an innocent person. Someone smarter than me once said that it was better to let 100 guilty men walk free rather than take the life of one innocent. I guess it's all a matter of the priorities.

 

After much consideration, I finally decided that I had better come up with some sort of instance whereby I would find in favor of capital punishment. Otherwise, I would relinquish my right to serve on a capital jury, leaving the fate of any defendant facing the death penalty to solely the blood-thirsty individuals among us. So, even though I am deeply concerned about giving the state the power to kill, even though I am deeply concerned about killing those who are actually innocent, even though I am concerned about racial injustice, even though I am concerned about the negative effects to the rest of society that having capital punishment generates, and even though it offers no significant deterrent, I recently decided that I just might be able to send someone to their death. Ordinary murder and rape would not be enough for me. Masterminding a terrorist plot that killed thousands, almost but not quite. Torturing to death and then eating dozens and dozens of children, ages 6-10, lets say, and then filming it and forcing millions of others to watch.... Ok, maybe we might have something there. Such a person would have to be completely devoid of humanity, just a sick animal to whom it would be a mercy to put down. Can I serve on the jury now?

 

Instead sentencing a person to death, how about if we sentence them to a “life†of being an organ and tissue donor . . . until they have no more “parts†to sustain their lives. That would benefit society. Two birds, one stone.

Of course, I am just kidding.

 

I agree Betelquese. Woohoo, I got to be a NO vote in two polls today (Abortion and Death Penalty)! I have spend a substantial amount of time around inmates the last 9 months or so (15 hours a week or so) and I have seen no evidence that the death penalty deters them in any way from a crime. At least, the thought of prison or the death penalty does not deter the guys who are really bad and would be candidates for the death penalty.


It seems like it boils down to vengeance. I can't say I'm been a victim of a violent crime, but drawing from times I have been wronged, seeing the other person suffer does little for me healing.


If I decide to do my dissertation on inmates, maybe I will come across some studies about how much perception inmates have of the death penalty.

 

And you think that the State should be in the business of handing out these punishments? I just don't like the idea of state-sponsored killing.

Of course, I'm more of the "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," camp, so I'm clearly biased. . .