I hope this one hasn't been done and I missed it. I read a story today that in People Magazine that had stories of people that were released from prison after being sentenced to death.

One man was there 33 years before DNA proved he had been framed for killing a mobster.

Anyway, the article went on to say that since 1973, 102 men and women sentenced to death had been exonerated, most often through DNA evidence. I thought it was interesting, but I still feel the penalty is warrented in some cases.

Are you for or against it?

Yep. We had one. It's not really that old or big yet - Death Penalty, for it or against it?

In some cases it is, but I'm still against it for the reason you mentioned. Too many innocent people sentenced to death.

MT

Maybe, but DNA matching technology exists today, which didn' t exist a decade ago. The margin for error is far less nowadays.

a margin of one is too many. Who knows you could be the one.

MT

The death penalty should only be invoked in the severest of crimes such as mass murder and genocide. for example if Adolf hitler were alive today i would send him to the chamber in a heart beat, also osama would be a good candidate as well. I feel that any man or woman who has served this country in the interest of peace such as the military or a high impact govt agency(fbi,nsa,cia,atf,etc.), then they should be exempt from such a punishment. however on the other side of the coin, how can we be hypocritical and punish someone for killing someonelse, by killing them yes it sets an example but it carries a notion of eye for an eye.

my thoughts are that the people should take lie dietectors in teh buildings, as a final form of independance. Most of the time the people who die dont use lie dector tests and thus the death of the people. I am a advocate in this and strongly believe in lie dectectors

There are two reasons that the death penalty should no longer be practiced:

1) To put someone to death requires more than "beyond a reasonable doubt" it requires no doubt, which as humans we are incapable of ever attaining.

2) The death penalty is inconsistent in it's application. A good example would be two men, one black and one, white kill someone. The chances that the black man (or any member of another minority) is sentenced to death is much much higher than the white man's. Until a criteria is set where everyone is held to the SAME standard then i believe that capital punishment should not be practiced.

I do think there is a place for the death penalty. The rash of cases where DNA evidence has proven wrong court decisions has created a huge mistrust of the judicial system. I do not care if it is a death penalty case or a minor case, going to court in this country looks to be a crap shoot rather than a means for determining the truth. No longer having a death penalty does nothing to adress the real problem.

I have to disagree. i believe the death penalty is horrible. to my knowledge, only one state keeps the electric chair. All others make it a quick painless death. I hate that.

Hitler and osama deserve pain beyond pain. Sentence them in a cell that a convicted gay rapist is in. Then make them work hard physical labor for 17 hrs a day. When they sleep, they'll wish they were out working than to be in with the rapist....

L. Zeved

If there is still a chance one innocent soul would ever be put to death, then no, I can't say I agree with the death penalty.



As far as I know, cruel and unusual punishment is not lawful.



Lie detectors are not 100%. Since they are not, I would not advocate them in a life or death situation. Also, I'd love to see where you got the idea that "most of the people who die don't use lie detectors so that is why they're dead".

I'm not completely convinced that the death penalty is right, but I also think it COULD be a crime deterrent, if used correctly such as,

DNA testing in 100% of all cases that could warrant the death penalty.

If proven guilty, no appeal.

But I could be wrong, I'm glad I'm not in charge of sentencing anybody.

I don't think it'd be that great of a crime detterent. Most crimes, I'm guessing, aren't ones that merit the death penalty anyway. Of the ones that are I'd imagine a great many are not balanced and the DP isn't/wouldn't be an effective crime deterrent either. Of the ones that are balanced, I'd think those are the ones that would probably not do it again anyway (parent killing, crimes of passion, stuff like that).

Of course all of the above is PURE speculation and I canNOT back any of it up.

It's hard to contemplate how anyone can associate the death penalty with justice. Most of the reasons have been laid out many times: The possibility of error, it's a poor man's penalty, it's regionally unequal and with life imprisonment the public's protection is not a consideration. Furthermore the evidence continues to be lacking that it is a provable deterent. I might add it hypocritically absolves the society from facing the social and environmental factors that influenced the sick evolution of the killer.

Devoid of any intellectual rationale it exists for the emotional pleasure and/or satisfaction of the rest of us. The Roman's figured that out and gave us the Coliseum games.

Let me take this opportunity to distinguish between murder and execution (two completely different types of killing) for those who do not yet know the difference, which I am positive includes you, Fubar. Murder is killing with malice and forethought. Execution does not fit this description, because it is not malicious (it's not done for the thrill of the kill) and is without forethought (the execution would not have happened were it not for the crime committed).

That having been said, I think that the Death Penalty could be used, but it has flaws. Because it has flaws, we may want to consider raising the stakes and making sure that there is absolutely no doubt before it is used. If we only executed criminals where there is NO doubt (I think that such cases exist), then the problem would be solved. Otherwise, life without ANY possibility of parole is better, if it can be insured that there really is NO chance of parole.

Easy. Zero repeat offenders.

There have been other threads on this issue where I went into detail about a young woman who was brutally raped, in a mall close to my house, while holding her infant in her arms.

The man is a repeat offender. He was out on parole for rape, when he raped her.

I would rather execute this scum, and clean out the gene pool, than have him wandering around raping women like that.

HE'S DONE THIS MORE THAN ONCE. When will enough be enough? When will rights of victims come before rights of criminals?

--cheers

PS: Oh, for those who are saying "life without parole is enough". Well, consider that my state is getting ready to free 3000 prisoners because of budget deficets. We don't have the money to keep them behind bars, so we're gonna release of bunch of them.

So much for that eh?

"Clean out the gene pool?" Better duck and cover

I am for the death penalty. However, only for extreme cases, such as serial rapists and murderers.

Some of this falls on what you think the justice system (prison system) is designed to do.

Some say it is for rehabilitation. It in itself? I've seen no evidence of that.

A place to pay for your crimes. Pay for? Who decides that stealing my car equals 25 years in prison. Is there some kind of mathematical equation for this? Some murderers get out on parole in a few years while others stay for life or are executed. No that argument doesn't seem to hold any water.

A place to keep dangerous people away from society. This one sounds good to me. They are dangerous get them out of here.

The obvious problem, there is the huge number of people in prison that are not really dangerous to people. This cascades into lots of other problems but sticking to the subject...

The death penalty falls into the last category but only because, as was mentioned, some of those dangerous people in prison get out. The United States, per capita, imprisons more people than any other country in the world. I'm not very proud of that statistic and crime seems to go merrily on.

Personally I don't think death is a penalty for the type of people who many think deserve it. Sure they deserve it but its the easy way. Life in prison keeps them away from us. Security, justice if you like that word better.

If, years later you discover they are innocent, then let them out. They will get a healthy lawsuit to live off of and that's the best we can do.

For treason and espionage, yes execute them. If normal civilian trials had the evidence that those type of trials had, there would be no innocents in that position.

The word justice applied in a broad and opportunistic way for all practical purposes renders the term meaningless. For the purpose of this thread I am talking about folks under the jurisdiction of the justice system who are subjected to unfair and arbitrary standards.

If a person is judged less for his crime and more for his economic status or race as often is the case, that is injustice.

A person who is executed for a crime he didn't commit. That is injustice.

When the safety of a society can be secured by giving the convicted murderer a life sentence the death penalty with all its attendant unfairness is injustice.



As tragic as this rape is it does not address the injustice of the death penalty. If there was a death penalty for what this fellow did and it turned out afterwards he was mistakenly convicted then there is no way of rectifying the wrong after the execution. A criminal wrongly accused or subject to a worse penalty simply because of his background is himself a victim which skews your whole victim-criminal dichotomy.

After reading some of the posts here, I began to think about crime and the people that commit it. Does it really matter if the death penalty is a possible punishment? I don't think so...no matter what kind of punishment you put on the table, it won't deter crime. I mean, does anybody commit a crime thinking they will get caught and punished? If it were a sure thing, then crime wouldn't be a problem, but when criminals commit a crime, they are banking on the success of their "mission". Thus, no matter what looms on the horizon in terms of punishment, criminals will continue to thrive on the prospect that they just might get away with it. Until we have a system like in 'Minority Report', where we can stop crime before it happens, I don't see any true deterrent for crime coming about any time soon.



I believe that the example was meant to exemplify a situation where no doubt could possibly be present. There have to be times where crimes are committed and it is known beyond ANY doubt that they are guilty. In these cases, there is justification for the death penalty.

I can't believe I didn't put in my two cents on this one...

I am one hundred percent pro-death penalty--- in theory.

If there is no doubt that someone committed a heinous crime, they should be put to death. If you are caught on tape emptying out a shotgun into a crowd of people, you should die. There is no doubt there. We caught you red handed.

But I am against the death penalty in its current practice.

In Illinois, we did kill people who may have been innocent. The system was flawed, and innocent men were likely killed.

Cases where witness testimony is the main evidence should never receive a death sentence. Only in cases where people are caught red handed, leaving indisputable evidence, should the death penalty be ordered.

Mike

I agree with Mike's theory. If someone is caught red-handed killing someone, tax payers should not have to pay to keep this person breathing.

CP

"2) The death penalty is inconsistent in it's application. A good example would be two men, one black and one, white kill someone. The chances that the black man (or any member of another minority) is sentenced to death is much much higher than the white man's. Until a criteria is set where everyone is held to the SAME standard then i believe that capital punishment should not be practiced."

Incorrect. Here are some statistics from the DoJ:

From 1976 - 2000, 51.5% of all murders were commited by blacks, 46.4% by whites (the rest were 'other').

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm)


Also of note:

Of persons executed in 2002:
-- 53 were white
-- 18 were black

Of persons under sentence of death in 2001:
-- 1,969 were white
-- 1,538 were black
-- 28 were American Indian
-- 33 were Asian
-- 13 were of unknown race.

Among inmates under sentence of death and with available criminal histories:
-- nearly 2 in 3 had a prior felony conviction
-- about 1 in 12 had a prior homicide conviction.

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm)

So, there is my info and scource, I'm curious to know where others go... perhaps to mass media?

A big thing to note is that 1 in 12 have prior homicide convictions. Those who favor light sentences need to reflect upon that. Very obviously the Death penalty does deter homicide since they can't get back out to kill more.

Projected out that one in twelve means that the 512,599 homicides recorded in that same period over 42000 of those were done by people with past experience. In the last 25 years did we even put that many people to death in total? No. So, though the system is not perfect, the 'It could be you' argument is sadly pale when describing you being sentenced to death wrongly as opposed to being killed by a repeat murderer.

Do the math - ignore the TV.

im in and out on this decision. It depends on the crime, say if america caught osama i would want the penalty but if it is something stupid like a guy ran over a kid, i would want life in prison

Personally I like Heinleins theory. A penal colony on the Moon....think about it now after you quit laughing...

ok done? Kewl...but if the UN collected 1/3 of what the world spends on prisons next year it could drive a global non profit corporation that's sole purpose was to build a penal colony on the Moon. It would take maybe 10 years on an aggressive schedule to get the first few incubation cells up there to begin growing food etc. But within 20 years it could be a viable maximum security installation... No need for guards etc. everyone there is a criminal of the most extreme nature. If they kill each other off so be it. If they organize and form a society so be it. Worked for Australia..

So no ore death penalty these folks can build the prison themselves. It is after all a high risk proposition. Now consider the long term economic ramifications....hundreds of thousands of new jobs created. Not prison guard jobs either but high tech jobs to maintain and continue the technology revolution. Third world nations could become manufacturers etc. and move out of third world status in just a decade.
Utopian? No that would be no criminals anywhere and peace and love etc.

Practical? Yes....The next most logical step? Yes...why not get to it?

GBYA

Aahz

BTW Until the above scenario is a viable option. The death penalty is all we have. Those that take life in a criminal calculated manner found guilty on physical evidence deserve to die. This includes Saddam Hussein..

GBYA

Aahz

Then Prather shows statistics that suggest just the opposite.

You left out a very important alternative perspective. Let's restate the above to show a disproportion that is statistically irrefutable.



As to the first statistic this runs counter to a long historical tradition but if there is some truth to it recently I suspect that it has something to do with Blacks more often killing Blacks and Whites more often killing Whites. There is just so much left out of this equation.

The fact is if you are rich or can get top notch legal help some other way you have an absolute guarantee you will not get the death penalty and will likely go scot free - White or Black.

Just ask OJ.

The Death Penalty is blatant hypocrisy. How can the state be morally justified in proclaiming murder to be the most grevious of crimes an individual or group can commit, and then retaliate through execution? What is execution but state-sanctioned murder? From whence does the state derive the right to murder its citizens?

The constitution says death to traitors.

Oh, and Mike, your late. That two cents you owed us, plus accrued interest...now equals roughly a couple bucks.

hand it over

--cheers

Hello!!!!!! He helped kill 3,000 people! If anyone should be killed it's OBL and/or Hitler. HItler committed genocide, I'm pretty sure that makes him a viable canidate for the death penalty. If we catch Osama these are our choices: A: death penalty. B: Put him in jail for life and make tax payers pay to give him food and water and housing for free, for the rest of his life. It's a no-brainer. Murderers do exactly what Hitler and Osama have done, just with less people, does that really matter?

CP

While I strongly support it in theory, I see several problems with the death penalty in practice. First of all, the public defender system in most states simply is not up to the task of mounting a defense in a capital case. And it's unlikely the legislatures will be willing to fork over the money to bring them up to speed. Unless they do, the prosecution will always have an unfair advantage over the defense. The upshot of this is simple--innocent people get convicted and the guilty go free because they agree to testify for the prosecution.

Beyond this, our penal codes are horribly out of date. Death is usually available only for first degree murder. Ironically, this category RULES OUT the very murders most people think should be punished with death. If a man stabs a child 100 times and rapes her repeatedly, it's highly unlikely he'll be up for murder one. On the other hand, if the father plots out the death of the murderer carefully and is waiting with a sniper rifle when the SOB leaves prison, the father WILL be up for death.

Unless and until these and other problems can be resolved, I don't support the death penalty.