What do you all think? Should there be a death penalty?

Why or why not?

For goodness sake, people, read the damn thread. Your questions and arguments are answered only on every other page of this thread.











It specifically say that people have been released from death row because there were evidence of their innocence. They were NOT put to death for being innocent. They were released. How many people can claim to be innocent of murder among the thousands. Makes a person wonder doesn't it?

Being innocent of murder hardly proves that they did 'nothing wrong'. In most cases it only means they were tried and accused of a more severe crime than they may have committed. In short, being innocent of murder doesn't necessarily mean they did 'nothing wrong'. Not to say that they deserve death for being accused of a crime they didn't commit, but how likely is that someone completely innocent of any wrong doing in a crime gets on death row and was executed?



What about the case I mentioned earlier in this thread, where evidence proves that a 5 year old was raped, brutalized and murdered? The media may exaggerate, but how much can they exaggerate in the case of a CHILD, obviously raped and murdered? How can the media exaggerates the grief that followed Samatha's death?




No justice system is perfect.

Yeah, but you and all of the other people who bring up that horrible "capital punishment is bad because we murder potentially innocent people" have yet to prove that even ONE innocent person has ever been executed. Period.

Isn't it common logic that the 63 people who have been released since 1973 were released because their case was under consideration? Do you think that this country's justice system is so headstrong to execute a person before considering all the facts? I'm sorry to inform you, but we're one of the only countries that doesn't do that. Your little bleeding heart should be very eased to know that it resides in a country where all of the facts are considered.

Out of the 976 people executed since 1976, how many do you think were innocent?

Out of the tens of thousands of violent parolees released every year, how many of them do you think won't go back to beating their wives, raping children, and wielding guns?

Until you can effectively answer 'all of them' to both of those questions, sit down, and shut up about 'innocence'.

Wron let them die in jail with out help

two wrongs don't make a right, but they make someone happier.

and eye for an eye will make the whole world blind, but fair.

That was my point, that there are people charged with crimes they did not commit and its clearly too late to compensate when they're dead. Here's another report on the innocence of a man but as mentioned, "There's a basic reluctance for governmental officials of any sort to re-examine cases after conviction and especially after execution".


Very likely, have you not heard about that case where the criminal persuaded a suicidal to plead guilty to his offense? I don't recall the details but this corruption is simple: money or blackmail to their families.
Whats more, there are crime's happening else where. I have just heard on the news, a policeman "knew he had to shoot" an armed thief. The criminal had a blade, but the policeman had a GUN. A weapon which could instantly kill, yet he did not get a death penalty for his rash decision. Rather, it sounded like an act of bravery. Why? Because he is an authority of justice which we must all obey, willingly or not.
Im sorry if I have repeated argument, but there are 20+ pages, majority which seems to rage on about injustice of crime, when in fact capital punishment contradicts this entirely.


haha, spare me your blind views. It happens that facts from the crime scene do not prove the criminal's emotional state or what actually took place. Just because you are not in that position, does not mean those who are can be ignored or judged because they, compared to actual criminals, are insignificantly out-numbered.

Justin brought up the point that no one has proven those who have been executed innocent. Also, being sent on death row obviously doesn't mean you're going to be excuted in a day or next month; it takes years and many chances for them to prove themselves innocent. Saying that there's a "reluctance" to re-examine a case doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. The fact that cases do, despite reluctance, get re-examined and that no proof on whether someone executed was innocent tells us something doesn't it?



I didn't direct my bold missive at you, but at the two posts below yours. I think you're doing great even though you think to let murderers (and serial killers) get away with raping and brutalizing others.

About the first case mentioned, if you can give me a link to some literature about it, I would form an argument because not much can be said if I don't recognize the problem. However, I feel this is where the much talked about forensic science should come into play. If others have been exonerated from the findings of new evidence then wouldn't it be possible for evidence to be found to prove a person's innocence? I know you said that forensic science doesn't replay events prior to the crime, but can you elaborate on how that could effect finding the right evidence to prove guilt/innocence?

As for the police officer, my only thoughts are, again, that no justice system is perfect. Justice doesn't have to mean an eye for an eye everytime, all the time. I've said before that I understand there are murderers who may have a tragedy of their own or circumstances beyond what we know that contributed to the main reason for their crime. However, if the law does not exact the crime of murder with the the highest form of compensation, then it says murder isn't that bad and that the life of the killer is, somehow, better than the life of the victim.

You still haven't answered my question about serial killers and child rapists/killers.

I don't agree with you on the child rapists thing, Fae. I can deal with it if multiple murder criminals get put on death row; I don't agree with the punishment or the way it's executed, but I can deal with that. But..if someone just rapes a kid..they haven't killed anyone. I definitely do not think the government should step in and just kill someone who committed a crime they think is more important then others. I'm not saying I don't think it's a horrible thing to do; it most certainly is but..I don't think that deserves the death penalty.

But I even have trouble with single murder criminals getting the death penalty. Some people are just messed up, but with help, they can become more "normal". It's not guaranteed, but I think they should have a chance to get the therapy they obviously need and see if it works. It's not a second chance, it's being given the opportunity and help that, if they had before, could have prevented them even doing the crime in the first place.

Well, I was asking about Samantha's case, where the 5-year-old was raped and murdered. That was a single kill. About therapy:



The problem with 'chance' is risk. In this case, we would be putting risks on more innocent lives when we give the murderer a chance.




The rolly eyes were directed at someone else.

I'm not saying all "murderers" or rapest should "get away" with their crimes. Of course not, but death is an easy way out to solve any problem, especially if they weren't even guilty in the first place.



The verdict of the crime assumes forensic evidence as hard proof of the person's guilt. It does not show events prior to the crime, but it is used in such a way to judge the person's guilt. For example, the Scheppele Corby case. An Australian woman was travelling to Bali when caught with marijuana in her surfboard. She was immediately taken to court and imprisoned. There is still investigation on a number of airport officials in Brisbane in an effort to find the person whom they believe had planted the marijuana. Under the Australian law, she is entitled to a fair trial in her native language. However in Bali, she is vulnerable to translation errors, and the death penalty through their Indonesian justice system. As you can see, not all death penalties apply to murder but evidence found at the scene is too influencial on the person's life.



As i said above, not all death penalties apply to murder and even if so, certainly does not require compensation. It is not the "life" of the killer that is bad, it is his actions - consequently, shouldn't this be punished, rather than destroyed?

And to answer your serial killer/child rapist, this happens and it is revolting. But soldiers sent to war also KILL people and there are some who rape the civilians, yet they do not get the death penalty, rather this is seen as another noble act, because they are serving the country..

So are you against capital punishment or aren't you?


Is there an example of such a case in the US? I just don't quite see how a woman can be sent to death because she was carrying marijuana under US legal system. Yes, I know what you about the death penalty not only being applied to killers... but the example you gave is of a foreign legal system and sentencing the woman to death for that crime is unheard of here.


And I need an example of death penalty not being applied to murder in the US. The highest punishment would be destruction. If a killer lives to kill, not only his actions are evil, the fact that he lives means lives were lost. Lets compare a serial killer to a deadly virus—AIDS. The action of the virus is bad, but the fact that it exists killed many people. Therefore, it's logical that we try to destroy the virus, is it not?


I'm talking about killers who rape then kill. Do these said soldier rape and kill women? Are these US soldiers? If not, then I don't see how what you're saying is relevent. In war, there are all kinds of casualties and each is a tragedy. If soldier raped and killed an innocent woman, then I would say he is no better than the kind of murderer we abhor and deserves death in turn depending on the reason for his crime. It doesn't make sense to me that you would say such an act would be seen as 'noble'. No one in the US would ever condone it as such, no one sane anyway. But you did point out something. Not everyone who deserve do die are on death row. This only proves that our justice system isn't perfect and that people DO get away with murder, which has been proven.

Yes I am against captial punishment, because there are other means of punishing criminals without the use of a death sentence. A Life imprisonment will remind offenders of their crime and others of the consequences. If someone wished to die anyway and thought of raping/killing before suicide, the death penalty does not serve much purpose to the criminal.

That's because there are harsher laws to crime in Bali. Is it reasonable? They seem to think so, just as any other country that finds it reasonable to use a death penalty. I don't know about the US, so you'll have to check that yourself, but this is what I found: "Since 1973 at least 88 people on death row were released after evidence emerged indicating their innocence." What would have happened if their innocence was not proven? - Of 88 innocent, who were prepared to be condemned, what does that say about the significance of re-opened cases if reluctance plays such a part?


However, the law is used in the same way. Prosecution by death.



No, because murder can be for a number of reasons. Self defence for instance, does not mean the murderer had the intention to kill. A virus is always bad. But humans are born good, it is up to the person how much 'evil' they allow into their lives.



Any rape or killing is wrong, whether they killed and/or raped it does not matter. But the fact remains it happens and because the justice system isn't perfect, the death penalty is used as a way of destroying those have commited it, underlining that the offender is guilty regardless- which is generalising that all those who kill are evil, which contradicts the purpose of the death penalty.

i think life in prison is worse than the death penalty. i see the penalty as a quick and painless death, but in prison, you die slowly. if they were kept in isolation, they'd go insane, whether with guilt, or skitzophrenia. im not trying to be cruel, but people are saying there should be a death penalty as punishment for murdering someone, and i think life in prison is much worse.

Fae, just because I don't think a single murder criminal should be killed without therapy first doesn't mean I think we should let him back out into the world. Putting someone in prison is not a second chance. I think they should get therapy while in prison. That's not a second chance at life..it's a first chance to get the help they need and not die because of the condition of their brain. They obviously have something mentally wrong, and I don't think they deserve that drastic of a punishment due to the state of their brain. That's something uncontrollable.

When people are arrested for drugs, they get therapy to make them right again. When people are caught stealing uncontrollably, they get therapy for kleptomania. When people beat their kids, they get therapy to help them see it's wrong. Why not the rest?

The problem with Life (sentence) is paroles. On this thread, we've name quite a few individuals who were paroled and went back on track with killing sprees. And Justin pointed out that no one gets life sentence. They get rehap and then evil walks streets again. If the person commits suicide after a killing, it simply says that he/she didn't want to continue living—that is punishment enough. As for compensation, there is none and justice cannot be served. On the other hand, killers who want to live and kill more people, a just punishment would be to take away his life—justice is served.


The question I'm concerned with isn't reasonability of foreign laws. To me, the only crime worth the death penalty is the crime of murder with malicious intent. Accidental killings are a whole different story. So, is the death penalty reasonable in the US? I think so. And since you are one the subject of would have's, what would have happened if one of those 88 wasn't innocent but was allowed to walk? "Evidence" can be a double edged sword. If people who were tried and proven guilty could be innocent, there's an equal chance that people who were tried and proven innocent are actually guilty. So, we're back to the one stable, reliable fact that no one executed has been proven innocent yet.

Again, the 88 people you mentioned were exonerated. Meaning, though reluctance may play a part opening up a case, it doesn't stop a case from re-examination.


Not true. Prosecution by death for the crime of murder with malicious intent is on a completely different scale than prosecuation by death for the crime of carrying illegal drugs.


The evil they allow into their lives make them evil. Their life turned from good to evil. As I've said before, I understand there are circumstances where a murder is for self-dense. However, what kind of self-defense are we talking about here? A homicide is differentiated by different degrees of murder. First degree murderers can be executed while second and third (so forth) go to prison. I can't imagine a killing in self-defense that would result in failed appeals and an execution. Someone could be charged with manslaugther, but manslaughter alone doesn't mean he/she is going to be executed.... this is not making sense to me. Do you have an example of this where prosecution proves manslaughter, or second/third+ degrees of murder and the defense goes on death row, failed with appeals and gets executed? Maybe I just haven't read about it?


The justice system isn't perfect but you think that allowing criminals to get away with murder would make everything more fair? By "get a way" I mean allowing them therapy—that the victim's loved ones pay for through tax, then paroled. Perfection is no crime. These killers go free and commit more atrocities and you think that is true justice?

Actually, it doesn't contradict anything when you put it into the right context. Any kind of killing is wrong, morally, but neccessary in certain circumstances—war, for example. Those who kill with malicious intent are evil, and therefore deserve the death penalty.




Sammi, the fact that a child could have lived and her killer is living means he has the chance to live while the baby girl did not. That is chance. His getting rehabilitated and paroled means a second chance at life. In court, if it's proven that the killer wasn't in the right state of mind and pleads insanity, or if there are extenuating circumstances (something 'uncontrollable'), he is NOT sentenced to death. It just doesn't work that way.

To answer why not the rest...
I know you're talking about a single kill, but there are quite a number of killers who killed once, get therapy and paroled only to kill again.

Then there's not much to discuss. The death penalty does not revolve around US laws, but many have died at the power of the punishment worldwide.



As long as we agree that there are other forms of murder besides "malicious" intentions which don't deserve the death penalty, yet still exists.

I am with it all the way. It's not a second chance now. They may had their chance to stop doing whatever they were doing, but they didn't stop and this is their punishment with breaking the law, or making one family suffer for a killing, or etc, etc, etc. Lots of crime out there. Not anything like prison.

Melissa

... so because there are death penalty elsewhere in the world, I cannot justifiably argue for it in the US by US definition? If you haven't read where I said the death penalty is reasonable in the US, you know it now. I can agree with US capital punishment, but I don't have to agree with capital punishment in other places of the world. Their laws aren't ours, and I don't think sending a woman to death for snuggling illegal drugs is reasonable, but I do think that sending someone who raped and murdered a child deserves it. It's not logical to group a law in one country with a law in another and say that they're all the same.

There are other kinds of murder, yes, but that's what's FAIR about the death penalty. NOT ALL MURDERERS get sent on death row, only the ones who committed the most atrocious of crimes—as in the case of raping a 5-year-old then ending her young life.



in case anyone's wondering why on earth am i posting at 5am, i went to work at 430 and got bored

Alright, I've been told that this is a pretty decent debate.

I should warn you all, that I did not reread the whole thing. I got to page 19 and realized that most of what I was reading was just reiterations of the same thing.

Therefore, I have not read the last few pages. If I end up repeating anything, I beg your forgiveness in advance.

I just had to leap in.

I do promise that I will not say "An eye for an eye" or use the counter-quote of "An eye for an eye would make the world blind." I will try to resist quoting scripture or ghandi.

I personally, am in support of the death penalty. And I'm going to toss up a few things here for you to mull over. If I ramble on beyond your liking, by all means...disregard and skip to the next person.

Firstly, the reason I support it is most certainly not the fact that it's cheaper. Many people in this thread have already proven, with sources, that it's a false assumption that you save money by executing.

Now, I've heard many people say that life in prison is a worse punishment...and on some level, I agree. However, here's an interesting thing to note. When people face the death penalty, they and their lawyers always struggle to the best of their ability to have the sentence reduced to life in prison. "Reduced". So, the murderers obviously consider the thought of death by lethal injection to be rather frightening. Perhaps through threat of death, they shall repent.

Secondly, Please do not bring religion into this discussion. I can understand that some of you feel that it has relevance. However, this is regarding law. The constitution states there is a seperation between church and state. Now, I'll make a deal with you...if you keep religion out of the death penalty issue...then I promise I won't suggest that the injections take place in church. Sound fair?

Once again, I'm not anti-christian or anything...and do indeed believe in god...but as the bible states "There is a time for every purpose under heaven". So...let us assume that this is quite possibly the time for the purpose. None of us have a concept what gods agenda is...or goddess, whichever you prefer. I think it's rather vain of us to say "No, this isn't what he wants."

Thirdly, I do not believe in it for the sake of vengeance. I do believe that it does cause a scare-tactic deterrent...I also personally believe that sexual criminals. It has been extensively proven that a sexual predator, and specifically a pedophile, cannot be cured. Once that portion of their brain has indulged in it’s interests…it is something that always plagues them. If released from prison, nearly 100% of the time…they return to their old activities…and if they don’t, they simply spend the time controlling themselves as they longingly look at the children at the local playground.

Fourthly, I do think for the death penalty to come into effect…that there should be strong DNA evidence. Irrefutable proof that they are guilty.

Life in prison these days does not always amount to life in prison. Many people are released despite the fact that their original sentence was life. Good behavior, is easily achieved if you are an evil genius. Heh.

And for those who say that the death penalty is murder, I think that has already been rebuffed proficiently…however, I will reiterate. There is a difference between murder and killing. When someone becomes a predator, whether it be a murderer or a repeated sex offender…they no longer fall into the category of a human being. We, as humans, have an obligation to hold ourselves above such horrendous crimes. If we fail in that obligation, we are no longer held to the higher standard of human life. In which case, killing them is no different then killing a rabid animal.

I have an example of someone who deserved the death penalty. For the life of me, I cannot remember the man’s name. He, and his girlfriend had kidnapped, tortured, and murdered 10 + women…before one finally got away. They kept her locked in a trunk at the foot of their bed…and let her out only to ‘play’ with her. The man admitted to having done this sort of thing since he was 13…He was 64 when they caught him! He said that he had probably done this to 100’s of women…and they proved that he was not lieing. He actually had journal upon journal, that they found…all of them relating to the most efficient methods of torture…and describing the reaction to each tactic. These tactics were not pretty pictures, and most of them involved sexual torture. I wont’ go into specifics, but one of them involved a red-hot curling iron.

That, is certainly someone who deserved to die in my opinion. However, the state did not have the death penalty…and he’s still serving life in prison. He lived in a crappy trailer before. He was interviewed not that long ago, and was in wonderful spirits…said that “It’s great” because he doesn’t have to work…he has made friends in there…the food is better than he got at home…and, most disturbing of all, he now has plenty of free time to write in his journal. He’s started a new journal…and continually indulges his mind in fantasies of torture and sex.

And he will die comfortably, in prison…of old age.

That is why I support the death penalty. But it should most certainly be reserved for the most perverse, the most cruel and hideous of crimes.

Oh, and I apologize for the length of my rant.

I'm sure that you meant smuggling...but thank you for the very entertaining mental image. :)

I see where you're coming from but, where are we going to get all this money to put all the criminals in therapy & higher therapists? and what if therapy doesnt work for these people? are you saying that is isn't possible that someone is just born with the natural instincts to kill someone else? plus, how are you to know when the people are completely healed? plenty of drug users and child beaters go into therapy, come out seeming perfectly fine, and then repeat their offense. I dont think therapy is the answer to all problems like we'd all hope. the truth is if someone kills, they have potential to kill again.

as for the death penalty thing. i doubt we'll ever find a good answer. personally, i'm against it because of my faith. being a christian i've learned that killing is never a solution and such (i'm not saying that non-christians don't have the same morals), but i know we cant just let criminals walk the streets.

i was watching a show about jail and some criminals would rather have the death penalty then have solitary confinement or life in prison. the fact is, less and less people are fearing death these days. tons of criminals know that if they kill someone they'll probably get caught and get executed and i dont think these people really care. It's kind of a scary thing to think about....I think there is a difference between someone who kills random people they don't know and someone who kills family members or friends...but ahh...i dont know what to do with all these people yet.

The question can also be asked, "Where do we get all this money to execute prisoners?" Due to mandatory appeals and other legal fees, it actually costs more money to execute a prisoner, rather than keeping him in prison for life.

^ yes but keeping a prisoner in prison for life is different from keeping a prisoner for life while sending him/her to a good therapist that can actually help them

I'm sorry, but I feel that some people are just beyond repair. I don't think, for example, that hitler could ever have received enough therapy to turn him into your average working class smiley face.

^yeah i completely agree...as i stated before:

Sorry, missed that part.