I work for a county courthouse scanning records onto computer. Out of the tens of thousands of pages that I have scanned I came across one that really caught my eye in which I have never seen before. It read :

DEATH WARRANT

I'm somewhat new to this area and asked some of my co-workers about this and they told me that a man that was convicted of killing a family (notice the careful wording) had been on death row for quite some time and was finally out of appeals, and his sentence is going to be carried Oct. 10th.

More information on this particular case here.

Is the death penalty illegal (per the constitution)? If not, should it be illegal?

If you believe it should be legal - why?

Ah, an oldie but a goodie.





Though I am strongly against the death penalty, I can't see any reason why it would be specifically illegal according to the US constitution. The ban on 'cruel and unusual punishment' is so incredibly abstract and meaningless to be worthless as guidance in this case. This is one of the many problems of having the only constitution on planet earth that has not been revised or updated in the last century or so.

However, its constitutional legality is beside the point. It is morally wrong and a staggering throwback, not practiced by ANY other first world nation on planet Earth, except for Japan, and even they have fewer than half a dozen each year. (2 in 2004, 3 in 2005)

If you look at the top executors on the planet in any given year, the US finds itself among the august company of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, when the USSR fell, one of the first acts by EVERY nation of the former Warsaw pact to celebrate their newfound freedom was to abolish the death penalty.

I could of course go on, others certainly will, but state sanctioned murder has no place in modern civilised society.

Seventeen years after killing executing a family of five, Jeffrey Lundgren will finally face justice.

What public good is served by allowing vermin like this to eat our food and be kept alive on taxpayer dollars?

The death penalty is a punishment, not a deterrent. It's too bad that Lundgren cannot be executed five times for the five lives he snuffed out because the children were "unruly" and thus sinners deserving of death and the parents failed to hand over all of their money, keeping some for themselves. The nerve of that Avery family!!

Is the death penalty illegal (per the constitution)? If not, should it be illegal?

There is nothing cruel or unusual about capital punishment. It has been used for centuries (and thus is not unusual). It is painless--and thus not cruel. It was also used by the Founding Fathers. It is certainly Constitutional.

If you believe it should be legal - why?

As I said--punishment. Some crimes deserve the ultimate punishment. Some crimes are forgivable only by God. This case, like so many capital cases, was cut and dry. There was no doubt that Lundgren killed these people and very little doubt that he would do it again.

People like Jeffrey Lundgren, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson and the like are all predators against society. They hunt their victims and then they kill them. Society deserves protection from these types of people.

I've always been a pro-death penalty kind of guy until very recently. For some reason it dawned on me that the State killing its own citizens, some of which did nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time, is wrong. Now, I would love to see Dahmer, Manson and all of those monsters mentioned above die, but if I have to sacrifice one innocent person for that to happen, then I don't want it to happen at all. Give them life in prison and watch them rot. In addition, right now [and I'll be looking for the data on it after this is up], it costs more money to execute someone [due to appeals, etc] than it does to lock them up for the rest of their lives; so in my opinion the fiscal conservative argument doesn't work here; and even if it did, fiscal conservatism is no stand-alone justification for killing someone.

As for the Constitutional issue, I'm with Amlord and Vermillon [hell of a combination there], there's nothing unConstitutional about the death penalty itself, but it is a violation of the natural rights of those killed who did not commit a crime, which goes without saying.


I know you probably see this question coming, AMlord, but doesn't jail offer society protection from the people in it? Isn't that the whole point of jail?

CP

In short, no.

Jail is for punishing criminals. Although a natural by-product of this is removing them from society (and thus protecting society) the people involved in death penalty cases are deemed (by a jury of their peers) too dangerous to risk their release.

The case between forever imprisonment and death by "compassionate" means seems to favor the death penalty. Many have referenced the Gitmo facility as de facto torture camps simply because they are unlimited confinement. Is death a better penalty than torturous, non-ending imprisonment?

As for the expectation that the prison system will protect people from predators--Jeffrey Dahmer was convicted of child molestation in 1989. While awaiting sentencing (and free to roam for God knows what reason) he killed his fifth victim. After serving 10 months for that child molestation, it took him almost two whole months before he killed again in June 1990.

Some "people" are monsters and predators and deserve to be put down.

I agree with Vermillion. I find nothing in the Constitution expressly forbidding capitalpuniishment. Indeed the clause “cruel and unusual punishment” is yet another example of why we need courts to interpret the constitution.

As one member so erroneously put it:



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=195858

This is a grayscale issue.

Indeed, in recent years both state and federal courts have made rulings that place limits on capital punishment.

Those under the age of 18 cannot be executed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4518051

The mentally retarded may not be executed.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa062102a.htm

A state judge in Georgia ruled the electric chair cruel and unusual as a sole method of execution.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...756C0A9669C8B63

Recently the Nebraska Supreme Court overruled a lower court judge who found the electric chair “cruel and unusual punishment.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A9609C8B63

I generally don’t like to rely on wiki, but it seems the trend is away from electrocution in favor of lethal injection.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair

I am against capital punishment for a number of reasons.

1. I think there is a moral issue involved state sanctioned murder. This is only an opinion, but I think it is not only immoral but barbaric.

2. Economically, capital punishment is not efficient. In a good many capital cases the state pays for the often destitute inmate’s defense and prosecution. How much more efficient would it be to lock someone up for life without parole than pay both sides of, in this case, a 16 year appeal process? There have been cases where prosecutors have forgone the death penalty as part of a plea bargain.

3. There is always the possibility of executing an innocent man. Please not the work done by Barry Scheck’s and Peter Nufeld's Innocence Project - 183 exonerations to date.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

I would highly recommend a little book by lawyer, pop mystery writer Scott Turow.

Ultimate Punishment : A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty

Turow was originally for the death penalty, but had second thoughts after serving on a task force appointed by former Illinois Governor (now prison inmate) George Ryan.

http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Punishment-...TF8&s=books

So don't release them. Seems simple enough.



That's a complete red herring and you know it. NOBODY has objected to Gitmo because people are in prison indefinitely, they oject to Gitom because people are in prison indefinitely without ever being charged let alone convicted, of a crime, something which is explicitly against the US constitution. To say nothing of the lack of consular access, the allegations of torture, etc. NOTHING to do with the debate at hand.



Again, complete red herring. The issue there is that he was free pending sentencing. Would it have been better if he had been free pending a deth penalty sentencing? Situation irrelevant to the debate.

Exactly the same the second point, if the crime he was convicted of drew a 10 month sentence, it would not have drawn the death penalty anyways, even if it had been legal in Wisconsin. Situation irrelevant to the debate.

In fact, in the Dahmer case, once convicted he drew life without the possibility of parole, and never hurt anyone else. Hardly a good case as to why the death penalty would be necessary.


Besides, the issue that gets under everyone's skin about these horrible murderers, is that they kill innocent people. So, the solution to that anger, is to put into place (or keep in place) a situation where the state ocassionaly kills innocent people?


The state's job is not to kill its citizens. As you yourself said, centuries ago, every nation had the death penalty. Now, among the first world nations, almost none of them do.

It's called 'progress'.

It would seem so, but in Belgium a "life sentence" is thirty years. Prisoners are eligible for parole in ten years.

In Austria, a life sentence for those under 21 is twenty years long. Adult (21 and over) convicts are held until death, but parole is possible after 15 years.

In Norway, a "life sentence" is 21 years at the maximum. In Denmark, it is 16 years. In Greece, a "life term" is 25 years.

In Spain, the maximum sentence is thirty years.

Source: Wikipedia

So we have concrete examples of dangers to society unable to be held indefinitely. The state cannot cling to the policy of "don't release them".

The United States is one of the few countries in the world where a "life sentence" actually means "imprisonment until death". Maybe some day we will progress and evolve into a better society.

So?

You have pointed out a risk or error in the system. Many countries have come up with methods to deal with this risk, and no, not just the US.

I canada for example, a prisoner can be given 'dangerous offender' status, at which point their life sentence is a life sentence. Changing laws to prevent the early release of truly diabolocal prisoners can be done about one hundred thousand different ways that do NOT involve state sponsored killings.

I mean no offense to you, Amlord, whom I respect, but of all the arguments on the death penalty, this one irritates me the most due to its sheer lack of basic logic.

If the current system does not hold dangrous offenders long enough, then modify the system, like other countries have, easy as pie. Its hardly as if killing people is the only available option. And you avoid that whole irritating 'killing innocent people' issue, just to name one...



That's my point, most of the rest of the first world already has. Keep up...

I don't see your point. How does the way these countries apply a life sentence have anything to do with the United States? None, unless someone get out of jail in Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Greece or Spain and comes here to commit a murder. Their judicial practices are not our call.

It seems you are not quite on your best game today. Maybe a new set of clubs would help. In other words, I've seen you do better work.

Is the death penalty illegal (per the constitution)? If not, should it be illegal?

I don't think the death penalty is at all against the constitution, nor was it ever invisioned by the founding fathers that it would be made illegal- I have not even seen one letter saying otherwise- and those dead dudes wrote ALOT of letters- unless someone has evidence otherwise?

Yes, absolutely should be legal-

If you believe it should be legal - why?

Okay- first I agree with CP, not because the state shouldn't be executing others, it is because the goveremnt can be so lazy about how they go about "getting their man"- so it is NOT the law I have a problem but they way they, ahem" execute" thier duties (I am so going to hell for that one )

CP and Vermillion- I agree that we need to fix the system so that "life is life"- but it never is, because the jail system is so low on resources, always- now- if we fix an underlying problem of WHY our jails are crowded with non-violent nor fraudulent criminals- maybe we could go along way to fix it- and use resources to keep real bad guy in jail (non-violent drug offenders in many states serve longer times in jail that serial rapists or killers!) - but, as they age- there is an enormous push to get a prisoner out of jail and into the geriatric social system- and, I have seen old men go killer in the nursing home after being in jail for 30 years, and kill again!

So, as usual, the practical application is to kill the bad guy to make sure he/she DOESN'T get out of jail.

Though, it would be nice if we COULD fix it by fixing our judicial system- I just don't see it happening.

CR You are overlooking something here. It costs more to execute someone than to sentence them to life.

Here is a PDF file from a Duke University study on the matter.

http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/PDF/WCA...0in%20prison%22

Just the trial for a death penalty case at the time of the sudy was $388,860.00 compared to $131,705.00 for life in prison trials. The longer the appeal, the highe he cost.

This plus savings from not prosecuting such as low level drug infractionss would loosen up funds.

Is the death penalty illegal (per the constitution)? If not, should it be illegal?

Well, all I could really go into on that one is punishment should be reasonable, or suit the crime. If you take say a serial rapist, and then a relative issue really to the observers of such, it may in there minds constitute reasonable punishment, or say for a person like Hitler. The only thing I can throw in on it is the fact that its relative, to try one person for the same crime which basically happens in a minor way usually can bring a variance of punishment. In some states people get sentences of many many years for a first time offense on a minor drug charge that in other areas would result with a fine and maybe probation. So to sum it up really quick, dealing with an issue like this, fact on it really could only be a matter of the heart in relation to the death sentence, more so overall in that human nature lacks any real desire to be fully understood, which I feel this issue would derive from. You can argue those relative facts, but its not like you can get something empirical from it in my opinion, such as has the death sentence really stopped the need for such a sentence. I would appreciate a libertarian society in many regards, but I could only wonder what law would look like if we let it free, or let society be feral on that issue.

If you believe it should be legal - why?

I really cant debate it, I would agree that in some cases I could see myself agreeing with the death penalty, like for people tied to 9-11, some of them should truly hang in my opinion. Simply because of actions committed or aided in heavily in relation to 9-11 left people trapped in a building dying from horrible means like burning to death or what not, not to mention how many people lost there lives overall and how much damage that will leave over time, but in that case should such direct victims be able to subscribe punishment, or society at large?

Follow my logic:

I support the maximum sentence for those convicted of certain crimes. Primarily, this is for punishment for committing said crimes. Secondarily, this keeps these creeps off the street (permanently if my punishment is imposed).

The rebuttal is that we just lock them up for life. Fine, okay. We can follow enlightened European brethren and simply lock them up. Problem solved.

Except, as the European justice system has evolved, it has gotten somewhat compassionate towards prisoners. The death penalty was renounced in favor of life sentences. Now, life sentences are deemed cruel and thus a "life sentence" is somewhat less than what you'd expect. In some countries, it isn't even as long as I spent school---sixteen years is a "life" sentence.

The Council of Europe has issued this statement:


The United States has gotten tougher on crime in recent years, while other countries have gone the opposite way. The US now has over 125,000 persons serving life sentences. One fourth of those include no possibility of parole. The US is one of the few places in the world where career criminals are locked up for life--even if they are non-violent career criminals. However, 3,000 "lifers" are released from prison every year.

The relevant point is that the countries that have done away with the death penalty have also done away (for the most part) with the life sentence. Will the next international pressure point be to eliminate the barbaric practice of life imprisonments?

Yet strangely these European countries have vastly lower recidivism rates than the US. Another problem with the system the US needs to fix. However that is another debate.

You either missed or ignored my point Amlord. Canada has a simple yet effective means of dealing with this problem. A life sentence usually means about 25 years, however truly ghastly offenders can be designated 'dangerous offender' and are thus held in prison for the rest of their lives, period.

Problem solved, and the state did not have to murder anybody. Why is that so complicated?




I'm sorry, Amlord, are you seriously pulling a slippery slope argument here? Are you honestly claiming that, if the death penalty is eliminated, then life in prison will be eliminated as well?

The reason many European countries have lower life sentences is that their justice systems tend to be more rehabilitative than simply punishment. That is a choice they have made, and by the way, it has resulted in far lower recidivism rates, and far lower serious crime rates in most cases. To pretend this lower life sentence is some kind of inevitable creep caused by the elimination of the death penalty is a touch silly.

I'm with Vermillion again on this one, AMlord...Those criticisms are negative reflections on those countries, not arguments FOR the death penalty. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that you've made any arguments for capital punishment in this thread other than it keeps monsters off the streets; but that is exactly what life without parole [which should be the maximum penalty, and should handed down to murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc.] does. So AMlord, what exactly are some reasons FOR capital punishment, because again, Europe being soft on crime has nothing to do with the debate we're having.

CP

I don't need to pull the slippery slope argument out. I can simply point to the slippery slope that has occurred in Europe. Indeed, there is already a push for it in the United States.

THE MEANING OF “LIFE”: LONG PRISON SENTENCES IN CONTEXT

The plain fact remains that certain individuals are dangers to society. This study argues against long term imprisonment on many grounds, including financial.

No, it hasn't. I just explained one of the main reasons why life sentences vary in Europe, as well as explaining why EVEN IF your statement were true, it does not apply in Canada, which has solved your problem without the state murdering people.

Nor, interestingly, does your quoted report in any way substantiate your argument. It is not arguing against life in prison, its central thesis is in fact quite different: "Our analysis has indicated that the lifer population includes persons for whom a term of lifetime incarceration is excessive considering factors such as the severity of the offense and the circumstances of the offender." It is attacking things like the 'three strikes' law where non-violent offenders are serving life sentences. It is arguing that the sentence of 'life' may not always be appropriate in cases when it is applied.

Interestingly, the study YOU cited also states quite openly: "In recent years, the application of new DNA technology and the work of organizations such as the Innocence Project have resulted in findings that a number of people sentenced to death were innocent of the crime of which they were convicted."



No it doesn't. Did you read your own study?

It argues that the sentence of life without parole should be used only in exceptional circumstances, it also argues for consideration in life without parole be given to the very ill, and that the sentence should never be applied to juveniles. At NO point does it say there should be no such thing as a life sentence or life without parole.


NONE of which (by the way) is germaine to the debate. The fact is that the state killing people is wrong, and unnecessary, and kills innocent people, the very crime for which you think the 'ultimate punishment' should be sanctioned.

I here this hyper-masculine response to this argument all the time. So as to make the other side look as if their just a heartless blob. The truth here is that as soon as the punishment becomes infinite it is no longer a punishment because the person in question will never have the opportunity to use his/her behavior that has been corrected by the punishment. In the case of a life sentence the punishment effect is gone and we are now protecting society from this person by keeping them from society forever which is a logical end. In the case of the death penalty you have converted your punishment into revenge, because at this point society will not gain anything from his death if he would otherwise be in prison for life.

Oh but the poor victims. Have we not learned through almost every religious, ethical and moral text on the planet that revenge is wrong. I know people feel satisfied when some monster is executed, but maybe we would feel even better if he was drawn and quartered. I feel the same emotional rage as every other person when I hear about the acts of some people in society, but I don’t feel joy or relief in the death of another person because it never un-does the crime they committed. And I would like someone to show me where a victim walked out of an execution and said “wow I feel so much better!”, it normally just adds to the pain.

Is the death penalty illegal (per the constitution)? If not, should it be illegal?

I presume that we are discussing the United States Constitution, although I have seen several references to European and Canadian laws, which I don’t believe are subject to our constitution…


At the time the Constitution was written, slavery was legal, blacks were counted as 3/5 of a human in the census, women were not allowed to vote, etc. For awhile, it was unconstitutional to have a beer. My point is, what was customary 230 years ago is not necessarily legal today. Our Constitution has always been a living document, open to interpretation by the courts, and amendment by due process.

I can’t recall the last execution in the United States. I rented a house from the hangman who hung the only person ever executed in Michigan. In this state at least, I would have to say execution is a very unusual form of punishment.

To argue that it is a punishment and not a deterrent merely underlines one of the principle arguments against Capital Punishment. If it were a deterrent, the perpetrators in the case cited in the introduction to this thread would have at least moved their murder party across the state line to a state where the death penalty is illegal.


It isn’t necessarily taxpayer funds that keep them alive. I have read several newspaper stories where our local sheriffs have gone after family members, or released convicts to recover the funds spent to keep them in prison. (Of course I have also read that in China, when a convict is executed, the state sends the family a bill for the bullet.)

Defense lawyers, judges and other court employees, jailers, etc. all make a living as these people fight their way through the system trying to stay alive. If we were to go back to the days when a man was tried, convicted, and then shot by the judge or marched out to the street and hung; a lot of these people might end up looking for other work. Some would end up at the top of the food chain. There is a limited market for some of these skills, and a limited market for corporate lawyers with a background in criminal law. Allowing convicted murderers to be held in prison provides steady employment for a number of people, and thereby reduces our welfare roles.

The only problem I have with the death penalty is not philosophical... some people CLEARLY require killing.... it's "practical".

People within our government and criminal justice system are often inept, corrupt, or just plain incompetent. As long as there is a chance, even remote, of killing an innocent person by mistake, I will be suspicious of the death penalty.

On the other hand, it's in the self defense interests of society to prevent the predators among us from victimizing more people.

That's why instead of the death penalty I favor the abolition of parole, plea bargaining for first degree murder, and prisons who practice punishment, not "rehabilitation".

We'd clean things up quickly if we actually made "crime not pay". In too many areas, for too many people, crime is a viable option that can be used without much fear of a downside from society.

Apparently you misunderstand not only my point of view, but the circumstances under which I submitted that study.

There is an effort in the United States to limit the use of life sentences or to modify the definition of "life" to include something less than "the length of the convict's natural time on this planet".

The report cites that the life term is increasingly being used as an alternative to the death penalty and that the death penalty exerts an upward pressure on the sentencing of convicts.



So we have lifers in there for crimes that could be eligible for the death penalty. Now, the report goes on to cite the fact that there have been errors in capital cases, but there may be many more in life sentencing cases due to the lessor scrutiny in those cases.



Relevance: the elimination of the death penalty will result in those cases being life sentencing cases, with less chance of discovering an evidentiary error. In other words: more innocent people will be put in jail and have less chance (and fewer chances) of proving themselves innocent.

So, we balance the high standard of evidence and appeals required throughout the capital crime cases versus the lower standards perceived in a life sentencing case.

Of course, since the report cites an upward pressure on sentences due to the presence of the death penalty, we can extrapolate that there will be a corresponding leniency in sentencing were the death penalty disallowed. In other words: criminals will be punished less severely on the whole and not just at the most heinous crimes.

The three strikes type of policy is a separate debate and I personally am against it due to many of the reasons cited in this report, especially the non-discretion of judges to sentence criminals on a case-by-case basis (the very foundation of the justice system, in my view).

The problem I have with capping sentences at life is that life no longer means life. Convicted murderers are let loose. Sometimes they continue their crimes.

Remember Willie Horton? He was convicted for a 1974 murder where he stabbed a teen 19 times and left him in a trash can to bleed to death. Massachusetts, which has no death penalty, let Horton loose on their furlough program ten times. Nine times he returned to prison. The tenth time, he fled to Maryland, broke into a house, assaulted a man and raped his wife. A Maryland judge sentence Horton to two life terms plus 85 years and refused to release him to Massachusetts stating: "I'm not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released. This man should never draw a breath of free air again."

The barbarian.

Michael Dukakis, then governor of Massachusetts, argued that the furlough program was the right thing to do. It was sensible. It was cost effective. It was progressive. It made "sense". It was "99% effective".

Until a convicted murderer commits another heinous crime.

Murderers Have No Right to be Free



The fact that the recidivism rate for released lifers is 20% link is not a good thing just because other criminals have a 66%+ rate.

Quite frankly I don't see any logic.

As others have pointed out, this is a slippery slope argument and not a very conviniong one at that.

What has happened in Europe isn't necessarily a precursor to what happens here.

A slippery slope is not a slippery slope argument if you can demonstrate that it has already happened under similar circumstances.

Fallacy: Slippery Slope



Luckily, I have provided examples supported the fact that there is reason to believe that events described will follow. I have provided an argument (although not necessarily incontrovertible proof, which is awfully hard to come by).

I disagree. You have presented an argument based on events that happened in other nations and attempted to extrapolate that argument to to the United States.

Within the context of something similar happening in another environment, then happening in the U.S. - this is a slippery slope argument.

Events occur in a particular environment or context - not a vacuum.

But you can't. What you have done is state that:

A- Europe does not have the death penalty
B- SOME countries in Europe have reduced maximums for life sentences.

(Mind you, not all do, France has the same 'life without parole law' as the US for example. The UK, with no death penalty since 1965, has "Whole Life Tariff", the equivalent of life without parole in extreme cases. In Germany, a court can in extreme cases find "exceptional severity of guilt", which is why 20% of all lifers in Germany actually serve their life out in prison. In the Netherlands, life sentence is a life sentence, period)

I'm not sure how the fact that the three largest countries in Europe don't fit your assertion helps your case... Even ignoring that, there is no causal link between A and B, and furthermore, I already explained why B exists, a point you ignored.

As if that were not enough, we can show Canada, which has not had the death penalty for decades, yet it seems to manage to have an equivalent of 'life without parole' with no problem.

So Massachusetts is no longer in the US? That's news to me.

I fully support executing convicted killers. Why is this act so "barbaric"? Systematic killing has been a human nature since the dawn of time, and I don't believe that a "civilized" society will change any of that.

What make's executing a convicted multiple killer so bad?

When a nation goes to war, it's passed onto our soldiers to kill those that oppose us. So is it ok to kill another soldier that opposes our soldiers because their govt. (or whoever is funding them) is paying them $5/day, for a cause they may not even support - yet it's "barbaric" to execute a convicted killer/rapist?

How is it our moral obligation to keep these people alive? I prefer to have them slated for death row for their crimes.

I'm not of the opinion that we should never defend ourselves with deadly force. Wars are conducted throughout history, even "civilized" history, to defend a nation - one's who threaten our way of life. In the process you kill someone who may not have ever done anything bad in their life - another soldier fighting for their countries cause. I suppose that since it is tens of thousands - or hundreds of thousands of them that threaten or way of life "it's ok to just kill em all if they gotta a gun and let god sort em out". Maybe that soldier didn't agree with his nation, maybe they had a wife/husband and kids - im sure this has happened thousands of time's in war. Yet somehow, in our more or less "controlled enviroment" we establish a threat to our society - a convicted multiple murderer and rapist - and put them on death row, but somehow this is a "barbaric" act.

Do you seriously propose that we never use death as a means of defense, and put in it's place a life improsenment instead? To argue that somehow state sanctioned killing is barbaric would also argue that we should never goto war - as it is state sanctioned killing. Even more so "barbaric" than a single execution of a convicted murderer.

As I've documented elsewhere in this thread, it is a better use of economic resources to jail people for life without parole. Capital cases, at least in Texas, are automatically appealed. The appeals process takes time, which it should, when we're talking about taking someone's life.

It costs less to jail someone for life than it costs to execute them.

The daughter of one of my friends went to jail for some legal difficulties she had in Collin County, near Dallas. I visited her in Collin County Jail, Dallas County Jail and Dawson State Jail.

These institutions are hard on visitors and harder on inmates. I don't see how anyone can think death is a worse punishment than life in prison.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with executing a convicted killer. There is something wrong with the state killing innocent people, which happens frequently. The connection to war, in my opinion, doesn't work here. War does not have the relative precision and narrow scope of a trial/justice system, war is all out, kill your enemy, and in doing so collateral damage is all but unavoidable. It is almost impossible to avoid killing innocent people in war, it is completely possible to avoid killing people through the criminal justice system, all you have to do is ban capital punishment. There is no real comparison.

CP

So why would you support war, and not support capital punishment? After all they are both hand in hand state sponsored killing. The difference being - the single person that has been singled out by courts and appeals to be a convicted "bad person" if you will. As opposed to war that just randomly kills people. So "collateral damage" as you put it (basically killing innocents) is "acceptable" yet capital punishment isn't?

Which is worse? Capital punishment or war? I would lean toward war - so do you support war, in self defense, yet not capital punishment?

BoF, are you stating that life imprisonment is worse than death? Unfortunately i've been to prison before (although it was a jail and very briefly) and personally I would rather live in prison than die. Ever see Shawshank Redemption?

Again, in war, killing innocent CANNOT be avoided. In the criminal justice system it can be, that's the difference, and it's a huge one. So yes, I do support war [a generalizatino, I know, but in theory I support it], and no, I do not support capital punishment because it's way of killing innocence is preventatable.

CP

So should we in turn, not imprison anyone? After all they COULD be innocent. In fact - as Amlord has allready established, the death penalty has released innocent's. If they were not on death row they would still be in prison. So would it be a sacrifice to have someone put to life in prison, who is innocent, who will die in prison or would be proven innocent and let out early, or to kill those that have not been proven innocent?

I think the whole "killing someone innocent" is a red herring. Well how about we just totally release all the prisoners because a few of them might be innocent. As you said it can't be helped. Our justice system is not perfect and never will be. Also some people believe life in prison is a worse sentence than death, though I am not one of them. (in other words you would feel better if we put someone to life in prison, who will die in prison, as opposed to the death penalty b/c they MIGHT be innocent?)

With impending death, as Amlord has shown, innocents are actually released more so than life terms than those on death row. This is pretty much common sense, if death is impending - most people will fight it moreso than someone that is just locked up for life (it's a free ride through life - your just restricted on freedoms but at least you wont be put to death). So should we have a system in place that may kill an innocent in which they will die in prison in a life term - or have a better chance of releasing innocents - which that someone may die at the hand of the state as opposed to in prison?

If we did that, we would be ignoring the extreme difference between being imprisoned falsely, and being killed. If you're imprisoned, there are chances to get out through appeal/parole/etc. When you're dead, you're dead. That slippery slope argument doesn't work here.

CP

Vampiel, I think you make a good point about capital punishment and war. However, I think what you provide is a good reasoning for why war is immoral and cannot be justified, along with capital punishment - not the opposite.

Taking another person's life, when that person is not trying to kill you, is morally wrong. The New Testament, along with almost every other holy book, says this clearly. Outside of religion, one can also easily see that killing other members of one's species is a bad evolutionary strategy. That we have done it for ages has no bearing whatsoever on it being "natural" or "right." The history of warfare, if one looks with any closeness, is a history of power structures convincing people to fight - and often resorting to forcing people to fight. If killing people was "human nature," no country would ever need a draft!

This topic also makes me muse on Amlord's signature - "Choice, not chance, determines destiny." Of course this flies in the face of all science - certainly there is a combination of both in all our lives - and of course it is a rather trite political statement, but it is interesting here. Espousing such a philosophy might suggest that, while the murderer made a choice to murder, and must therefor face the consequences, the person murdered is equally culpable, since his or her own choices led them to be murdered.

Think also about this aspect: the more we discover about how the brain works, the more we learn how to treat and cure the various ailments found therein. Illnesses that once caused people to be institutionalized for life, or imprisoned, are now treatable with medication and therapy. I don't think anyone would argue that we would be better off dealing with mental illness the same way we did two centuries ago. Of course not! Times change, and we develop better understanding of what causes certain behaviours.

So why do we resist any advancement when it comes to criminality? I would posit that it is mostly a political, psychological reason. Shouldn't we do what works best? Many recidivist criminals suffer from neurological abnormalities that might be treatable. Studies have shown that criminals who were taught Transcendental Meditation had a much lowered recidivism rate. Why shouldn't we want to solve the problem of criminality? Instead we seem stuck in the 18th century.

And of course that ties in to Amlord's signature again - if someone is born with a chromosomal abnormality, are they responsible for it? Are they responsible for the "destiny" that abnormality dictates? Do we choose to contract a disease? Serial killers have such a predictable life story, profilers are able to be very specific about them. This points to some sort of chemical problem, not simply a "choice." Exploring these issues seems more worthwhile in the long run - we should be learning how to identify and cure the types of "chance" chemical and chromosomal problems that lead people to be violent, instead of throwing a bunch of money around once the results have occurred.

So why don't we just start killing people randomly, let the gov't shoot whoever they want in the civilian population.....after all, many are most likely guilty of something. Why have a trial at all, let officers shoot people on sight, because cops can tell when someone is guilty or not, right?

Killing an innocent person is not a red herring. The system is notorious for finding people guilty when they are innocent. And if you've ever served on a jury, you know that people often take leaps of faith when convicting people. Our system is no where near perfect, and once a person is dead, you can't remedy the error of falsely convicting someone.

If the cost of killing someone exceeds that of incarcerating them for life. Why do you care if they aren't killed? Does life incarceration not serve as much a deterrent as death?

It seems like you just want to kill the guy for the sake of killing someone.

I don't see were you are going with this? When did I ever advocate that?



So is it ok to lock someone up for life then? Because they could be innocent and die in prison anyways - that's the red herring.



No I don't want to kill the guy for the sake of killing. People that rape a 10 yr old girl then go shoot her parents in the head after abusing them with a fork. I want him to be punished for his crimes against humanity and be put to death.



That was my point. If you are on death row your chances of being released due to innocence are greater than if your not. Again with the whole innocent arguement - people are put to life improsonment - is that ok because they might be innocent? What if it's never found they are innocent and rot and die in prison?? Of course it's NOT OK to do that, so should we abolish the life sentence to?



I disagree. I believe taking another person's life, when that person has killed many other's is a fair form of punishment. People that eat other people, rape little kids then go stab their mother and mutilate their body, I have no problem putting to death.



That sounds like a very good plan. I also believe while we are altering the chemicals in the brain we should pop in a hard drive and some ram.

Seriously if this were concievable to were we could "change a human physci" we might as well create a perfect world while we are at it. And in this perfect world no one would kill each other so the death sentence could stay but we would never have to use it!

Does it really sound so outlandish to you? So idealistic? What about the plethora of diseases and mental illnesses which we can now control, relieve, and eliminate? What do you suppose happened to people with schizophrenia a century ago? Many were in prison, many more were locked in institutions for life. Today we are much better at identifying what is chemically happening in the brain, and we know a lot more about pharmaceuticals as well.

Now, I am not talking about some bizzare "Valley of the Dolls" world, where we are all peaceful and happy through medication. I am saying that there is no reason to think that the chemical misfires that produce violence in humans cannot be discovered and dealt with.

Let's look at what happens when rapists or child molesters are castrated. Of course, their recidivism drops dramatically. Hmmm. Now that I think about it, testosterone is probably the worst culprit here... I say we need to kill off all the men - or at least suppress their testosterone production!

Vampile,

Pay attention.

The question you answered gave you the answer.

If someone is in jail and late found innocent, they can be set free.

If they have been executed, it's a little too late.

True. But, as Amlord noted, the higher evidentiary and appelate standards in capital cases make exoneration of the innocent more likely. It's a bit of a Catch-22 in this regard.



If we sought to remedy this by applying the higher evidentiary standard to even life imprisonment cases, then those against the death penalty would lose the "it's cheaper than execution" argument, as costs to try all murder cases would skyrocket.

I have to admit, I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, but this is vexing. Is it worse to have 10 or 20 or 50 times the innocents rotting in jail than executing just one innocent man? Not to mention, what if we mistakenly castrated someone - yow!

I'm all for research on changing the human genome. I will glady volunteer myself and hope I don't end up with three legs.

Sure it's possible, and when a day come's that we could actually do that, we will be forcing people to be non-violent through changing the human genome and altering chemicals in their brain. Then we can offer these super non-violent humans jobs at the local nursery or assisted living homes.

I don't see how this is an argument against the death penalty? It's also a punishment, so they would have to be altered at birth.

BoF yes, and I have already responded to that.

People on death row have a better chance of receiving appeals, access to evidence, etc.. and proving their innocence than those who have a life sentence.

Also in my previous post :



People die in war, and it can be avoided, by simply not going to war and only killing those that are directly attempting to kill you in your little personal bubble. The Japanese were not trying to kill my grandmother directly, so was it "morally wrong" for her to support the war, since it's morally wrong for me to support the death penalty since they are not pointing a gun at me?

If you do not support the death penalty that's fine, but I don't see how you can use the immoral card to kill someone that does not directly attack you, unless of course you don't agree with supporting US involvement in WWII.

While that may be true, there's one element you can't refute.

People on death row stand an astronomically higher chance of being executed than non-death row inmates.

Of being executed, yes. Of actually dying, not as much as you would think.

link

So, in 2004, 59 out of [3315 + 59] were executed, or 1.7% of death row inmates. According to the DoJ, the annual mortality rate for violent offenders in state prisons is .31%, so you only have five times the chance of dying if you're on death row vs. the general prison population. Essentially, it doesn't seem that we are killing people on death row at a very rapid rate. But you are right, pretty much only death row inmates get executed by the government.

The fact that humans have been killing each other since the dawn of time is hardly a compelling argument as to how executions are not 'barbaric'. In fact, it is a perfect example of how it is. If you exclude the last century, people have been having sex with children since the dawn of time too, so (according to you) how can THAT be barbaric?




OOoooook...

Lets start with a basic principle that (i hope) we can all agree upon: Killing is wrong.

In any society even trying to approach civilisation, One NEVER needs to explain why somebody should NOT be killed. Exactly the same as one need never provide legal or moral justification for why people should NOT be raped, for example.

Rather, it is the proponents of killing that need to explain in some great detail why the state should be in the business of killing its citizens.


Proponents of the death penalty always like to bring up the 'death during war' argument, as though it had any bearing on the debate at all. It does not of course, war is a sad inevitability of humans that we should all be doing our best to move beyond.

Furthermore, if nations engage in war when there are other, non-violent alternatives which solve the problem just as well, these neations are breaking the laws of civilisation. In the case of law enforcement, there IS an alternative, life in prison.

Its like EVERY situation like that. The police for example are allowed to use deadly force in certain circumstances in the performance of their duties, but ONLY when there is no other alternative. Period.


Speaking of absurd non-arguments, the idea that it is 'equally wrong to lock up an innocent person' is utterly beyond all logic. An imprisoned person can be RELEASED. Please explain to all of us how you would release an executed innocent man who was subsequently exonerated?


Talk to David Milgard, the Canadian who spent years in prison on a life sentence before being exonerated by new evidence. How would you suggest he have been treated if Canada had the death penalty? Bury his pardon beside his tombstone?

An innocent person has never been put to death(under the US court system) in the United States.

What worries me about the whole death penalty/life in prison argument is when will some group come along and claim life in prison is cruel and unusual. I noticed AMLord touched on this earlier but this can happen, and has happened in some countries.

Those against the death penality like to lump the US into a group with countries like China, Syria and Iran to make us look like barbarians. But what is our rate of executions compared to them?

How on earth can you possibly claim that? University and NGO agencies (not the government or the establishment) have taken it upon themselves to examine the cases of hundreds of people on death row in the US. As a result of these, DOZENS of people on death row have been released, deemed innocent.

So, given that these efforts are quite recent (last 15 years), and that in that time dozens of people who would otherwise have been put to death have been found innocent, how can you possibly claim no innocent people have ever been executed? That is a baffling statement.



(sigh)

No it won't, and no it hasn't.

In no country has a life sentence every been deemed 'cruel and unusual punishment' and banned. Not one. Ever. In fact, quite contrary to Amlord's bizarre claim, the opposite is true, in the last 10 years several of the largest countries in Europe have created 'life without parole' laws, France for example. Thus the trend seems to be towards increasing, rather than decreasing jail use in extreme cases.

Besides, even if your point were true (which it isn't), so what? The fact that some people MIGHT come and claim life in prison is mean is a reason not to join the rest of the first world in banning the death penalty? That doesn't even make sense.



If you list the four most prolific executioners in the world, they are China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Yes it is fourth behind the top three, but ahead of the rest of planet earth. Syria actually executes substantially fewer people per year than the US does.

The US is 'lumped into a group' with those countries not by nasty death penalty opponents, but by the reality of cold hard facts.

Fine. The onus is on you to prove that one person in the US has been put to death by the US Criminal system. I am going on documented facts, not guesses.

If you can provide proof that one innocent person has been executed I will join in your fight against the death penalty.

With the increases in DNA technology it seems we are moving even farther away from any potential error, than closer.

I disagree. I do not believe killing is wrong under certian circumstances. I believe killing is a fair punishment for the scum of our society, such as people that cannibalize, murder and rape others.



I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. If someone walks into a mall with an AK-47 and starts spraying the toy store with bullets I believe that person should be killed. Or rapes a 10 yr old then strangle's her and dumps her body in a plastic bag down the river. A person that masterminds the death of 3,000 innocent civilians by flying planes into a few buildings, that person should be killed.



Um, no... explain to me why they shouldn't be executed. It's NOT wrong to kill someone in this sense. You seem to have some sort of dillision that we can all just hold hands around the campfire and sing songs of peace and unity. While that may be nice I don't live in an imaginary world were everyone get's along and can be "talked" into changing their ways.



Bingo. "should all be doing our best to move beyond" I completely agree, but we are no were near that point and showing "compassion" to say UBL or Timothy Mcvay by "just locking them up for life" in no way is acheiving the goal of not ever having war. In fact I would say quite the opposite, some people will never be reasoned with so they must be killed, like UBL and all sorts of other scumbags that walk the earth. Since you keep bringing up the "what if they are innocent" I submit what if they escape, and kill 30 more people, or 3000 more people?

Some people should be killed, that's why we have war, that's why I support the death penalty. It has everything to do with a death penalty arguement as they are both a threat to our society and our way of life.



There is also the alternative that we simply do not goto war. Let them come to us and lock ourselves in and defend the country. Why should we have crossed the pacific in WWII? Seems to be pretty aggressive to me, to go after and kill those that threaten our way of life. Same concept as war, just on a smaller scale.



Right so in other words, if it's either the cop or the robber, the robber should get the bullet. So.... why not in war? Why not wait for someone to be personally pointing a gun at a soldier here on our soil, or at John on 5th ave to kill them? I mean it is an alternative to going over there and killing them. Wait for them to come to you personally.




Not necessarily. Since you like to talk about "strides" in society I submit that there are ways to factually know that someone was the perpetrator as much as I know this is a granola bar that im eating. Also what if they escape and kill another 10 people?




You should talk to the victims of innocent civilians that died in WWII. You could have waited for them to be pointing a gun at you personally, but instead you supported going out and killing them somewere else... they weren't a threat to you because they aren't in front of you with a gun... right?



This just re-enforce's the point that the death penalty release's more innocent's than a life sentence - due to the threat of impending death.