Death Penalty, is it right or wrong? Options

[mznikki]

I'll cut in:
"According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., the most comprehensive cost study was published by Duke University researchers in 1993. This two-year study determined North Carolina's capital cases cost at least an extra $2.16 million per execution, compared to what taxpayers would have spent if defendants were tried without the death penalty and sentenced to life in prison. Applying those figures nationally would mean $1.69 billion were spent on the 784 executions carried out nationwide since 1976 (in 1993 dollars).[1]"

Costs of the Death Penalty.

Generally, a Capital trial will always cost more than a normal murder trial. Beyond that, the number of appeals and further time, work, effort and preperation (money) spent on inmates on death row far exceed that spent on life sentenced inmates whom have no chance for parole.

i was just gonna say that (about the taxes) that is true.. and yes i support it i'll go more into the reasons later. i'm currently doing a project on this issue.

[APairOf_IrishEye...]

Personally if this person was sentenced for shooting someone then stand him up and shoot him down.
Bullets cost waaay less than the death penalty.
If this person brutally mudered 15 people then brutally murder him.
Its like do unto them as they did unto others.
Give them a taste of their own medicine.
They deserve it.

[silly ol' man]

It is entirely possible, given the reality of our justice system, that we have put an innocent man to death.

Well, darn! Your entire argument is thrown out as pure speculation and theory in that there's never been any proof of this occurrence.

That's the pits.

[MrStrife]

Personally, I'm against because death isn't a decision anyone should be able to decide whether or not the person is a murderer, molester, thief, etc. Kharma is real and nobody should be playing God because as humans we make mistakes.

I just want to end this with a reference to the movie " The Life of David Gale"

[NoSex]

Well, darn! Your entire argument is thrown out as pure speculation and theory in that there's never been any proof of this occurrence.

That's the pits.

How many people have been found to be not guilty after being on death-row for years and years? How many people have been put to death on pure "speculation and theory?" Is it not reasonable to assume that our justice system doesn't have a perfect record when it comes to putting people to death?

Further, what kind of proof do you want?

[Kontroll]

Actually, just because someone is against the death penalty doesn't mean that they don't advocate reasonable punishment. Most do. And, most people who oppose the death penalty oppose because they think that killing isn't okay, not because they think it is. Get that?

But, the first paradox holds true. If you advocate the death penalty, you advocate the killing of persons who have been founded guilty under the law. If even one of these persons has been incorrectly sentenced, then you are a murderer of sorts. It isn't so much a literal proposition, so much as it is a cautionary one. It is entirely possible, given the reality of our justice system, that we have put an innocent man to death. When we go to the length of imprisoning him, psychologically torturing him, and commiting the most premeditative form of killing possible (where the victim even knows the time, place, and method in which they will die), we suffer a level of humanity. This person's life is directly within the hands of our legislation, and our courts. You would have to be confident enough that innocents are not being put to death, otherwise, you would be advocating their murder. And, in reflection of your premise (pro-capital punishment), you also would deserve to die.

However, in the case of a prisoner escaping/being let free and murdering other people, that is almost entirely on the shoulders of the prisoner. They are, at that moment, entirely responsible for their actions. I can not be held responsible for his actions, especially when I do not even advocate them. However, when you advocate the death penalty, you are running the risk of advocating something that terminates innocent people. Not to mention, I wouldn't want to see a blood thirsty killer set free, and I highly doubt it happens that often. I'm for reasonable life sentences, without parole.

Are you serious? Psychologically torturing someone? Why? because we stick them in a solitary room when they are acting up? It's punishment. They are there for a reason. Yeah, I understand that some people are innocent, but Don't say it's just the justice system. Let's blame it on the forensic scientists. The lawyers. Why does it have to be the whole system?

[*yrrnotelekktric*]

against.
1. No one deserves to die. No matter what.
2. If they are receiving it as a sentence due to homocide, it won`t bring whoever`s dead back.

I say if you want them to suffer, let them live so that they go through eachday knowing what they did.

[silly ol' man]

How many people have been found to be not guilty after being on death-row for years and years? How many people have been put to death on pure "speculation and theory?" Is it not reasonable to assume that our justice system doesn't have a perfect record when it comes to putting people to death?

Further, what kind of proof do you want?

Perhaps something that doesn't come from "www.deathrowinfo.org."

Yeah, that website's not partisan.

[alysaphobia]

against.
1. No one deserves to die. No matter what.
2. If they are receiving it as a sentence due to homocide, it won`t bring whoever`s dead back.

I say if you want them to suffer, let them live so that they go through eachday knowing what they did.

^yeah but what if it happened to you?
what if somebody brutally murdered your parents, raped your sister, or committed other hateful acts of violence?
would you want to let them live after they caused such pain to direct family members or friends? do you think you'd still value their life ... "no matter what"?
true, killing them won't bring the victims back to life.
but the point isn't to bring back the victims anyways.
the point of death penalty is to punnish somebody for their actions so that people will start to seriously take responsibility for their own actions. it's not a mean sentence people throw out for revenge, it's so people will stop and at least think about the consequences before they go out and kill somebody.

[cori-catastrophe]

i think it's fair, unless they are insane or something. it wont bring the person they killed[if they did] back to life, but it would serve them right. if they commited a crime that is that bad, they should have the same done to them. they should have known when they commited[sp] the crime that they were going to have to be punished. if they didnt' want to die, they shouldn't have taken the chance. but i think my opinion on this is pretty warped.

[NoSex]

Perhaps something that doesn't come from "www.deathrowinfo.org."

Yeah, that website's not partisan.

"As of February 2004, 113 inmates had been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed."[1]

There is a thin blue line. Har har.

[silly ol' man]

Oh, right! The ACLU! Aren't those the people that defend Fred Phelps' right to desecrate funerals?

Yeah, that's good stuff, too. Har har.

[NoSex]

Oh, right! The ACLU! Aren't those the people that defend Fred Phelps' right to desecrate funerals?

Yeah, that's good stuff, too. Har har.

And, the ACLU's defense of a radically right wing conservative means what...?
Clearly, their information concerning the death penalty is biased.
Which side are you arguing?

[*I Viddy Horrorshow*]

Oh, right! The ACLU! Aren't those the people that defend Fred Phelps' right to desecrate funerals?

Yeah, that's good stuff, too. Har har.

You're really being rather tiresome, you know.

Perhaps you could indicate the type of source which to your mind has no partisan nor idealogical bias, and save everyone the trouble of your over-powering wit?

[silly ol' man]

Is it that hard to see that the ACLU is clearly biased in terms of this topic? I mean, is there any other way (besides sardonic commentary) to get that very simple point across?

Find information from a source that doesn't peddle just your position and I won't be "rather tiresome." But this really is day one stuff.

[NoSex]

Is it that hard to see that the ACLU is clearly biased in terms of this topic? I mean, is there any other way (besides sardonic commentary) to get that very simple point across?

Find information from a source that doesn't peddle just your position and I won't be "rather tiresome." But this really is day one stuff.

I'm not entirely sure that the ACLU is a particularly dubious source, but if you insist:

"The Chicago Tribune (10-14 Jan, 1999) ran a scathing series of articles
exposing the role of prosecutors in contributing to the number of wrongful
convictions in the United States in general, but especially in Illinois." [1][2]

"From Michael L. Radelet, Hugo Adam Bedau, and Constance
Putnam, In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in
Capital Cases. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992,
and Bedau and Radelet, "Miscarriages of Justice in
Potentially Capital Cases." Stanford Law Review 40 (1987)
:21-179."[3]

Here is a critique of the DPIC study which is generally seen as an authority on innocence and the death penalty: [http://prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm]

Even here (prodeathpenalty.com) they admit that at least a few innocents have been sentenced to death (but released). Also, their criticism seems highly questionable from time to time (missing footnotes on top of it).

As the point is to show the fallibility of capital cases, pleading that we can't prove certain innocence in any of the exonerated death row inmates by making a distinction between "actually innocent" and "legally innocent" seems erroneous. Should we then begin to show the fallibility of our judicial system by building a distinction between actually guilty and legally guilty, and arguing that we can not have certainty in anyone's actual guilt? What's important is that death row inmates are found, years after being sentenced as guilty, not guilty. It happens. The judicial system is fallible. It isn't wholly unreasonable to assume that, somewhere at sometime, an innocent has been put to death.

[xBUTTMUNCHx]

No, I believe that if you did not give them life, you have no rights to take it away.

[Amaranthus]

yes because if you really think about it, its a form of murder, which is condemnable by the death penalty. so your basically doing the same thing thats considered illegal

[trulyandnever]

Wrong. Bad. Shouldnt be alllloowed. Could be more punishing to just sit in jail for the rest of your life anyway. Its a pretty pathetic existence when you think about it. Besides if the persons deserving of it.. /shrug.

[kimmytree]

I'm against it, but not because I think it's too cruel. I think killing a person for commiting murder is letting them off easy. That way they can spend life in prison, having to live with what they did. If a person is somewhat normal, the guilt will haunt them until they die.

And what if someone is wrongly accused and sentenced? It'd be a shame to find that out after they've been killed.

[USCavalry]

wrong, cuz vengeance is in no way logical or beneficial, also i'm catholic, but that's not why i'm against it

[concreteangel]

This is a really hard topic for me.
My father was murdered in 2000 and for a long time I wished that his killers would get the death penalty. A part of me still does but then the other half of me says differently. Why should they get death as their sentence? They should suffer the consequences of what they did. They should suffer in jail for the lives that they took or whatever the case may be.

[Jamwllms]

I personally believe that if you have commited a serious crime, then as such, all your human rights should be considered void. That's not going to happen, of course, that's just my twisted imagination at work.

But yes, I do believe in the death penalty for crimes like murder. Not only because I think they have virtually lost the right to live, but for a financial reason. Over here in Great Britain, I believe it costs something like £50,000 to keep a prisoner in jail for a year. Which we have to pay for through taxes. Not to mention the rates of recommiting crimes after they are released..

You've got to choose: "Do they deserve to live?" or "Do they deserve to die?" -- It all depends on how you look at it.

So yes, I am indeed for it.


- James.

[RikaCharmyLove]

Yes, but how is the crime in those places? *Makes note to go research*

Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Me I belive the death penalty is wrong!
The goverment has no right to kill someone.