So, what do you think. I personally am not a big fan, but I'd like more info.

I think it works. I think it keeps people from going to far if they know they will be executed if they murder someone.

I am trying to decide what I think of the death penalty. I supposed if you had a loved one killed by say the terrorists, or the snipers I guess I would feel more strongly towards it. I think you would want some kind of revenge. But I know that there are a lot of prisoners on death row that may never be execuated. It is just the way our judicial system works. I will interested to see how people feel about this topic.

I'm against the death penality. Too many mistakes are made.

Madtown

Madtown I am not aware of any mistakes for a person on death row being wrongly executed. Please if you can give me more info I might really have to rethink this subject matter

MO3, Ever so often you hear on a program, such as 60 min. or you read in the newspaper about a person , who was convicted of a crime, being released after spending several years in prison. They were found guilty of a crime they didn't commit. A lot of times it is dna evidence that proves their innocence. Sometimes it is discovered that a witness lied, sometimes the police withhold evidence. You feel so bad for them, spending years of their lives behind bars, but what if they had been executed?

Mom - You live in a state where the death penalty is on a moratorium. This is because thirteen people (and possibly more) who were on death row were exornorated due to DNA evidence.

Illinois Suspends Executions explains a little about why your state has made the decision to halt executions and review the process.

It is for this reason I have mixed feelings on the death penalty. In violent crimes where there is overwhelming evidence (MUCH more than "beyond a reasonable doubt"), then I support the death penalty. But if there can be any doubt then that punishment should never apply.

Along with abortion and drugs this is really a tough subject. I'll admit I go back and forth. But overall I guess I favor it. There are usually enough appeals that it takes years before it actually happens, and like Jaime I have not heard of one that has taken place and then the person was found innocent. There have been cases of it happening before the actual execution. I definitely favor it in (whatever they call it) the really horrific homicides such as the sniper or the child in Cal. DNA evidence has made such a big difference so I feel more secure with it than I did.

I've always been against it. The reasons being practical, definitive, and philosophical. Practical because it does not act as a deterence any more than punishment acts as a deterence for burglary, corruption, domestic violence or any other crime. They are all on the upswing or at stable numbers regardless of what the statistics are. Definitively because of the influence of the philosophy of behaviorism and the principles of behavior that governs the animal kingdom of life. Philosophically because of the influence of the scourge of mankind which is the ignorance of that which is manifest as religion and other metaphysical practices.

Free will is the major foundation of the entire socio-economic and judicial cultural construct that we call civilization. It always finds fault or solutions in the symptoms of unacceptable social behavior but the problems always remain. Society or rather the manipulators of social behavior are not interested in the causes of social problems any more than the medical "community" is interested in causes to medical problems. It has been that way for as long as humans have been social animals. They are much more interested in the control of the symptoms of the problem.

This is a brief explanation as to how it is that I cannot find any agreement with almost all politiians. Once in a while you'll find someone by luck or chance that has found his/her way into public life but they soon cave in and comply with the great majority. And so this culture, as many have in the past, will continue to stumble and struggle to try to deal with the problems that ignorance and it's practices produce.

IOW's there is no future with gods, ghosts or other metaphysical constructs. It will eventually be left up to science and it's application to the social scheme to deal with and solve the problems created by ignorance, scarcity, and the price system.

[QUOTE]


I agree with you Jaime. We often hear of people being pardoned and released from prison, sometimes from Death Row, because new evidence proves them not guilty. But in the most heinous crimes (terrorists, the D.C. snipers, serial killers, etc.) where there is an overwheming amount of proof, I support the death penalty

The death penalty is a punishment with which I agree in theory, but disagree in practice, at least in the current form. I have a little bit of an explanation for the death penalty moratorium in Illinois, and then I'll spout off for a bit.

One of the main catalysts for the moratorium in Illinois was in fact the proof of innocence of several death row inmates. The circumstances leading up to this, however, are interesting. Apparently some law students at Northwestern University were assigned death penalty cases to research. While researching, one team of students realized that the guilty party in the case was in fact not guilty. They pressed for a DNA test, which is not required in past death penalty cases in Illinois. The DNA test offered proof that the man in jail was in fact innocent. I believe he was released. In later years, students at Northwestern University continued to research death row inmates, and discovered several more innocent men scheduled to die. This is what caused the moratorium. If a bunch of college kids can prove these criminals innocent, there is a problem with our legal system (no offense to college kids).

So the death penalty is a tough issue. Victims want justice and closure. But...

Speaking purely from an economic standpoint, it is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life. The death penalty appeals process for which we pay typically runs well over a million dollars. Compare this to the 20-30 thousand dollars a year for prison, and it is a no-brainer. And then you have the added bonus of life long misery.

I think that the death penalty should only be applied when there is overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence. I'm not talking an eye witness or two. Eye witnesses get things wrong. After all, we were all looking for a white cargo van.

But if we have video, audio, or other concrete, definitive evidence, I am all for the death penalty. If we have a DNA match, that is good enough for me.

But we can't just kill everyone convicted of a capital crime.

Mike

If the prisoner were executed, no one would have an excuse to reopen the case and attempt to prove his innocence....so we'd never know, and dead men don't care

Mike: I disagree with your numbers. I don't know about your state, but in mine, it's more like 60k a year per inmate.

60k times 20 years = 1.2 million dollars. And that's only 20 years.....not life....

The binnies far outweigh anything else. More executions = saving money, more cell space for criminals not deserving death, total prevention of repeat offenders...etc etc.

That might sound harsh to some of you. But I am more concerned with the rights of the innocents victemized by repeat offenders, than I am with some piece of human trash rotting in a jail cell somewhere.

Besides, lethal injections are swift and painless. Mercy like that was probably not afforded to the victems I'm sure.

--cheers

I am completely against the death penalty. What does it say about a society that is willing to kill one of its citizens? America has such a rampant disregard for its own citizenry. Every state that does not have the death penalty has a lower crime rate (or it might be specifically homicide rate.) than those that do. There are many nations that do not have the death penalty, and they have signifigantly lower homicide rates. The death penalty is legal in both Maryland and Virginia, but did that deter the sniper? No. It doesn't deter people from crime because the very nature of a criminal is that he thinks he wont get caught, and therefore will not suffer any punishment.

I find it repulsive that its debated on how it is "cheaper" to kill an inmate. So now there is a price for human life? Although, from what I've read it is around 20-30 thousand to house an inmate for life, and that the appeals process is more pricey. I'll try to see if I can find any information on it.

Also I dont see why life in prison is not a good enough punishment for repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are usually serving a minimal amount of jail time, and not escaping from prison. If they were sentenced to life, then that problem would be solved.

There was a case a few years ago in San Francisco (I think) where the judges opted not to re-open trials with newfound DNA evidence because it would "hurt the victims". That is disgusting, I understand not wanting to rehash old wounds, but if they have the wrong person in prison, then the criminal is still loose! What good does that do?

It is also morally wrong to kill, whether the state approves it or not. I dont understand why there are no consistency in people's views. It is never OK to kill. And I think the ramifications of a society that allows state sanctioned killing is apparent.

I'm in favor of the death penalty.

Sure, execution is killing someone, but there are legitimate and illegitimate times to kill someone. Execution is a legitimate case. Execution is done only after the person has gone through the judicial system and has been found to be guilty. Sure, there are flaws in the judicial process, but it's a process that we all abide by as a citizen of this country.

I would like to see a 3 strikes and you're out for executions. First two times you're convicted you go to jail. Third time, you're automatically on death row. And no appeals to waste taxpayers money.

If that were the case, someone could be executed for stealing a pizza.

MT

Clarification, I'm not referring to petty crimes, but felonies.

To go into a store with a dangerous weapon intending to steal would be con
sidered a feloney. Even if you don't use the weapon. I wouldn't like to see anyone executed for stealing.

Any crime listed under Sec. 289 of the penal code (California) is a felony, which includes bigamy.

I don't think anyone should be executed for bigamy.

I don't think anyone should be executed at all, much as I sometimes think they deserve it.



Madtown

I am totally against the death penalty. Everyone makes mistakes no matter what they are. I think it's enough punishment to sit in prison for the rest of their lives and think about what they have done and who they have hurt.

I think Killing Someone is not a MISTAKE. And sitting the rest of their lives in jail thinking about what they did would be enough. I am not talking about killing one person. (Which should be enough). But the people who take more than 1 life. Do you think if they killed say 1, 2, 3 or more they CARE. I think not. And I would think the families and friends would not stand for them getting a life imprisonment. I think the death penalty would be the right decision.

Should we really allow a creep to get three chances? That's too many chances! Felons shouldn't be able to commit two more felonies without serious consequences in my opinion.

I've heard some statistics about how much it costs to jail a person per day, but cannot find them at this time...Does anyone happen to know how much it costs to jail a prisoner per day? I know it's shockingly high and this is one of the reasons why I'm pro-death penalty. Why should I pay for scum to sit around and watch tv all day long!?

Because of the risk that innocent people will be executed. If you want to talk about taking away priviledges for prisoners that's a separate topic...

There are rare cases that I feel death is warranted. The John Gaceys, or Jeffrey Dahmers of the world. When Tim McVeigh was executed my feeling was 'good riddance.' Is that a bad way to feel? I guess so. I don't think any more death penalty cases should be carried out unless there is DNA evidence. There is obviously too much human error. The opposite of justice is being served.

I also believe the states that have DNA evidence on file for old cases should have to be examined at the request of the family or prisoner.

If the prisoner were executed, no one would have an excuse to reopen the case and attempt to prove his innocence....so we'd never know, and dead men don't care

I really hope this was supposed to be a joke.

So are you saying that it should be up to you to to distinguish which criminals are "bad enough" to be executed? I don't really see where we should draw the line between some psycho and some guy who found his wife cheating and lost it...I just don't see any gray area in this issue. If someone near and dear to you was brutally murdered, would you feel the same way? An outsider like yourself might come and say "this 'criminal' isn't truly a psycho, he just snapped, he doesn't deserve the death penalty, he's no John Gacey or Jeffrey Dahmer, that's for sure!"

Just something to think about...

No, I'm not saying that at all. I go back and forth on this issue. I am pretty in the middle. All I can be sure of is they need to have physical proof through DNA. The rest was just my 'off the top of my head' feelings about certain monsters in history. I can still see that baby in the fireman's arms from the OK Bombing. I did not mourn Tim McVeighs death.

I do agree with you about the DNA...Do you happen to know if they had any DNA evidence linking McVeigh to the OK city bombing? I don't think they did, but I could be 100% wrong...I'm not trying to be confrontational by asking, I'm actually quite curious. Thanks

I don't think so. It was new at that time and not as common as it is now. I need to refresh my memory on the case. He never denied the charges as far as I can recall. But, my memory of the actual trial is not so hot. You would have to check.

Oh I hate it when someone says this. Like that changes everything, just because I've never had someone come and rob my house doenst mean I wouldnt have a good idea about how I would feel. There is a group of victims that are against the death penalty. Nothing will change the pain and suffering you feel after losing a loved one, and killing another human being is only going to add pain and suffering to the world.

As for killing Timothy McVeigh, I am upset that we did. Not only because it is wrong to kill him, but because Oklahoma was obviously more than a one (or two) person job. Its pretty wellknown that McVeigh ran in militant right wing circles, and he would have been a pretty valuble well of information had we not killed him off.

It is 100% wrong to kill anyone. Especially if youre the state.

This would quite possibly affect anyone's feelings, obviously. There are many who would like to kill someone for bullying their child or flirting with their spouse. That is why those "near and dear" to the victims of crime are not responsible for meting out justice. The law is meant to be dispassionate, not ruled by emotion - especially emotions so strong as vengeance or grief. Were that the case, this would be a land of lynch mobs and vigilantes - though, reading this thread, I can see where that might appeal to some of you.

I am for the death penalty. However, I think that they should review all of the people on death row SEVERAL times before taking action to insure they have the right person. But yes if a person commits a crime worthy of death they should die.

That does change everything...I'd like to see the group of murder victims' families that are against the death penalty, I find that intriguing. And for the record-if someone killed a person who was close to me, it would help with the pain and suffering. And on the other hand, if someone I held near was a murderer, it wouldn't add pain and suffering to my world, no matter what they shouldn't have killed.

BringIt,

I can see your point. Let me give an example. Cary Stayner is the guy that killed the three women in Yosemeite and later another Yosemite park worker. She was almost beheaded. The crimes were brutal.

He was arrested and convicted. The interesting twist here is that his younger brother was kidnapped on his way home from school in the early '70s he was around 7yrs old. The man kept him and molested him by telling him his parents gave him up because they couldn't afford to keep him.

Seven years later the molestor abducted another young boy and Steven Stayner escaped with him and was reunited with his family. They had a difficult time adjusting and Steven died in a motorcyle accident a few years later. (They made a TV movie about the story called, "I know my name is Steven." It's still run on Lifetime periodically.)

Then his brother Cary was involved in the murders a few years ago. His parents have suffered so much already. Killing Cary will only bring more suffering to those parents and the rest of that family. It will not bring anyone back.
I underststand the families of the victims too. But the law shouldn't agravate the suffering of the people. I don't know...it really is a hard balance to achieve.

I see what you mean, but bottom line is that Cary shouldn't have killed. It's really too bad that his family has gone through so much, but it's also unfair to the families of Cary's victims. God help his family, they are really being punished emotionally for nothing in their own control, but I guess that's an example of life not being fair. Justice to the families of the victims may be execution, it might be a good policy to ask the victims' families in cases like this.

How do you know it would change everything? Has anyone you known ever been murdered? Your speculating as much as I am. But I think we should be above our petty revenge emotion, since that is pretty much the purpose of the death penalty. I will try to find some info on that group I mentioned before (I only know about them because of my ex.)

Kim, I have a good friend who's daughter was murdered by her husband. He is now serving time in prison. My friend is broken hearted. She tells me that never a day goes by that she does not mourn her daughter. She has forgiven her son-in-law, she does not wish him dead, but she wants him in prison paying for his crime. She tries not to hate him.

MT

. Wait until he gets out on bail. They usually do. How many murderers are free today, walking the streets? The trouble with the whole thing is that a life sentence is not necessarily a life sentence.
I have a neighbor who's daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered. If you think she doesn't want the death penalty you are sorely wrong. She lives with this every day. They have DNA to prove it. Not only that but he is suspected of several other rapes and possibly murders. Yuck

well, I guess that's the difference between your friends and mine.

MT

look at this page...it shows that their an increase in deaths (MURDER) in america http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/28/...ain527162.shtml I belueve in the Death Penlty because it keeps people like these from murdering other people. How wou you feel if the murder brok out and god forbid kill someone you love

I'm not speculating. My best friend (and also neighbor)'s brother was murdered 4 years back, and his entire family seeks the death penalty. All of which are hard core democrats that were formerly against it. One of my good friends was killed a year ago, over something so petty. If it makes the story any more convincing, he was stabbed and then doused in gasoline and burned to death. OVER $20! These punks were trying to "prove a point" by showing that no one could mess with their gang or whatever, and if all they get is some time in jail watching tv, I hope they watch their backs when they get out....I feel the death penalty is very warrented! And "petty revenge emotion" is not the only reason why I seek the death penalty, I know that if this punk gets out of jail he'll probably commit the crime again. Think about it, if you knew your life would end ifyou committed murder, wouldn't you thinkk twice before doing it? And think about this also, if you knew you could plea bargin and kiss butt to get less time and you'd have a taxfree vacation of an allotted time in jail, would you be more likely to do it?

An eye for an eye, creeps will stop committing crimes before the world goes blind.

Thanks for finding that info.

Man, I knew when I posted that you were going to come back with "Well actually, it did happen to me." Color me stupid. I am sorry for your loss.

And I do not believe (and many studies have shown) that the death penalty is not a deterrent. How many criminals do you know that were like "Well the punishment is what stopped me"? The very nature of crime is the intention of not getting caught, therefore they are confident they will not have to endure any punishment. And do you know how awful it is to be in jail? Its not come "vacation" time, I cant stand it when people think going to jail is a walk in the park. If its so great, why arent we all there? The conditions of our jails are disgusting, and more so if youre on death row. In Pennsylvania if youre on death row you are only allowed two hours out of your cell. There are many cases where inmates have been denied medical care (and this isnt just for death row inmates, this could happen if you happened to steal a can of soup and got put in jail).

I found some excellent websites on the death penalty, as well as some stats. Heres the website for victims that are against the death penalty:

http://www.mvfr.org/homepage.html

heres another excellent and comprehensive website about the death penalty in America (by a Dane no less, but an excellent source. Also there is a part of the site that talks about the conditions for prisoners):

http://www.fdp.dk/index.html#mat1

excerpt:

i suggest people go to this site, as its a well of information. there are also a few pictures, so beware.

and of course the ACLU website:
http://archive.aclu.org/executionwatch.html

excerpt:

about how the death penalty doesnt work as a deterrent:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html

excerpt:

Kim, thanks for your response to what I've said, but no matter what I'm pro-death penalty and I've really got nothing to say other than that. I understand where you're coming from, yet the penalty for murder would deter me. I'm tired, too tired to fight right now. haha, have a good day!

How disappointing! I was looking forward to some argument. C'est la vie. I guess I can settle on agreeing to disagree.

A 1982 study by the New York State Defenders Association showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.

In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence," according to the US Government Accounting Office.

In 1988 and 1989 the Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of "more than $11 million."

The Miami Herald reported that the state of Florida, with one of the nation's largest death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or roughly six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence.

I don't know which state DP is talking about, but if the cost of housing an inmate is $60,00 per annum, I'm sure that the cost of maintaining an inmate on death row through the lengthy appeals process is astronomical.

I'm talking about Oregon.

Wertz. Those sources are over a decade old. Got any links?



Lets do the math shall we? 3.2 million / 6 = 53, 000

so, 53k is all it takes to inprison an inmate for LIFE? what are they smoking?

If you are on death row for only 20 years, that comes out to $2650 a YEAR.

If you commit a heinous crime when your 20, you might spend 60 years in prison on death row. In which case, they only spend $883 a YEAR on you.

I'd like to see some hard numbers on what it takes to pay for an inmate on death row for one year. I would be very suprised if 3.2 million is really 6 times more.

--cheers

I stongly agree with my decision... first lie detectors then regular death

http://www.stateline.org/fact.do?factId=561

Per inmate spending as of 1996. They don't explicitly say, but I would assume this is per year.

--cheers

Are you aware how faulty lie detectors are? And what the hell is regular death?

Also, I am still pretty disgusted that there is a price on human life. It shouldnt even be up for debate, and I am still pretty sure its cheaper to imprison someone for life than it is for a death row inmate to go through a few appeals. I'll try to see if I can find any info on how much the appeal process is.

Er - let's really do the math, DP:
3.2 million/6 = $533,333.33 (not $53,000). You must've been educated in America. But that does make a wee bit of a difference, n'est-ce pas? Even using Mike's lower figures, that's still nearly three times as costly as pushing through a death sentence.

Though I must agree with Kim that the cost of a human life shouldn't really be at issue. Then again, economic arguments may be the only thing that gets through to those who would argue for the death penalty on the grounds that it's cheaper than "paying for scum to sit around watching tv all day" - which, it seems, it isn't.

This might help you better explain your answer

http://www.truthinmedia.org/Images2000/us-...p-death-row.gif

hardy har har

Not the product of American schooling, the product of staying home all weekend, and yesterday...sick.

I knew I should not have posted while I wasn't feeling good.. :/

Your right Wertz.... (don't get too used to hearing me say that )

--cheers

As i said in the other forum, i thinkk the death penalty should be with the electric chair, not painless death. sentence them for life without parole with a convicted gay rapist as a roomate. manual labor 17 hrs a day. or, use that as a basic punishment and let the family decide. that should be the primary choice. if there is no family, let them take the punishment i suggested. anyone disagree?

L. Zeved