This was said in another Debate on the Death Penalty. It lead to me wanting to hear how people feel about the Death penalty and the gains / losses in grants to society. SO:


Question: What is the benefit to society gained by putting such animals to death?

Question 2: How is is better then a "Natural Life" sentence without the possibility of parole that would ensure the criminal died in prison?

Question 3: Is the "benefit to society of putting the worst human animals to death worth the risk of potentially putting the innocent to death?

They will not be able to harm any more innocent people again...Plain and simple.
Because the American people should not have to pay for a murderer to live and eat and be given a roof over head.
Yes, the risk can't be ignored though, however we can't soften up on criminals, it just can't happen.

CP

If these were imprisoned to the rest of their natural life they would not be able to hurt innocent people again either.





Depending on the state. it costs anywhere from 1/3 more to 1/2 more to house and care for a prisoner on death row then in general population. This does not include the massive extra costs of convicting and getting the death penalty in court and the constant defense of that conviction against a seemingly limitless amount of appeals.

Add to that, the fact that more prisoners on death row die each year to natural causes then do to the implementation of their sentence and you find that society looses a great deal of money on the death penalty.



I have never seen any evidence from any state with the death penalty to support the idea that it is a deterrent. It make sense that it would not be. For it to be a deterrent, the criminal would have to consider the possible consequences of the action beforehand. Most criminals do not think like this, that is why they are criminals. Also, most criminals live under the delusion that they will never get caught. If you don't think you'll possibly ever get caught then what might happen to you if you do get caught is irrelevant in your mind.

Lastly, life is a lot easier and nicer on death row then the general population. Personally, if I was facing criminal charges that would amount to either my entire natural life behind bars with the other animals, or death, I'd vote for death. Assuming I was guilty.

Answer to question #1- They cannot kill again and members of society are educated about actions and consequences.

Answer to question #2- Taxpayers should not be forced to feed, clothe, house, educate, entertain, or provide medical treatment to first degree murderers

Having said that...

Answer to question #3- NO!!! Neither an individual nor the State has the right to murder an innocent human being for the "benefit of society!" It's easy to entertain this question ("risk") as long as you are not the "innocent" in question!

As long as the "innocent" is alive (although wrongly imprisoned) there is the possibility that their innocence will come to light and they can reclaim at least a portion of their lives! Unless or until "guilt" can be proven beyond any and all possible "doubt" ("reasonable" can be awfully tricky-watch the movie "Minority Report") the risk is not worth the horror and injustice of a "mistaken" execution! What do you say afterward.....OOOOOPS?

Having said that...It sure would "feel" good to hang all those "guilty" monsters!!!

If we could count on killers facing 'hard time' for the rest of their lives then maybe we could eliminate the death penalty. But we can't. Cable TV, in their cells as well as performing for the cameras as was recently done on VH1 is one of many glaring examples.

If you review a year's worth of activity for a 'lifer' you will find a liveable existence. We adjust and learn to make do. His victim wasn't given that chance.

Is it a deterrent? It can be. If we stop making martyrs out of them.

Will we execute some innocents? Probably. But we sacrifice some for the good of the many every day, it's all a part of living in a 'society'.

Supermax prisons eliminate this luxury, as well as a lot of others. They can read or sit on their bed with very little human contact, other than the guard coming with their food, which is slid through a slat. They have one hour, maybe, to walk around outside all day, and get three showers a week.



I'll agree. Some lifers have it a lot easier than others. But, it's quite a bit cheaper. New York, for example, has spent 160 million dollars on seven people on its death row. That's about 23 million dollars for each person, and a pretty hefty price tag for housing one prisoner. What about if some of that money went to the victim's family rather than setting the scene for a rather sick display of vengeance?



A few studies that contradict what you're thinking, right here. The murder rate, in the south, where 87% of executions occurred in 2003, is still the highest, at 6.7 per 100,000 people. You'd think that with so many executions, that there'd be some deterrent, but there isn't at all. One study there even shows that the murder rate in Oklahoma increased after the resumption of executions in the state.



Okay. Here is an example of three teenage boys that were singled out and sentenced to harsh sentences. One of them, supposedly the ringleader in this farce created by the cops, was sentenced to death. There is no evidence directly linking any of these guys to the scene, and a confession was obtained by a group of cops threatening one of the guys with physical and mental duress if he did not cooperate.

If it were your children facing death for a crime they didn't commit, I'm sure you wouldn't be making that statement.

Oh really? How horriffying!!! Could you please provide some examples of when "society" murders ("sacrifices") innocent humans for the "good of the many"? (and please exclude the abortion issue which is a completely valid but separate debate).

And if you do provide examples, does that make them right, or just?

What is the benefit to society gained by putting such animals to death?

Well- it absolutely positively keeps that particular person from EVER commiting ANY crimes again. Now- if we were to EXPAND the death penalty to massive fraud it would be a deterent IMO- killing poeple like Ken Lay would do enormous good- because those guys commit thier crimes in a completely different manner- over time, with pre-meditation over and over again- they are really no different in action than the "horrendous" crimes we think of, except they do it wholesale instead of retail. So as a deterent to violent criminals- no- won't act as a deterent, but would stop re-offenses cold.

How is is better then a "Natural Life" sentence without the possibility of parole that would ensure the criminal died in prison?


Natural life sentence that you speak of is just as much of a fantasy of happening as seeing corrupt CEOs hang- ain't gonna happen- bad guys will walk over and over again in our system- no way to stop it as we are set up right now. It is just impossible for the justice system today to insure actions of the justice system 50 years from now.

Is the "benefit to society of putting the worst human animals to death worth the risk of potentially putting the innocent to death?

Of course this is the best argument against the death penalty- along with the executing of only the poor (I was researching and have not found a single person that made over 30 thousand a year in todays money that has been executed since before WW2)

At this point- we should have a distinction of "unmistakible doubt" for some crimes- such as the killer of that girl in Florida- or Dahmer etc- where we literally found heads in the freezer. Upon declaration of this, all appeals should stop, executed within 24 hours, only the governers stay will stop it, and only for 30 days at a time.

I think we've already beat this argument into the ground... There is no FACTUAL argument for supporting the death penalty. It is state-sponsored revenge that costs too much money and puts the state on the same level as the criminal who originally comitted the crime. I don't see how ANYONE could think that this is anything but an emotional argument for those who support it. Our society is beyond eye-for-an-eye mentality which only breeds idiocy and results in nothing learned from traumatic experiences (which is the only beneficial thing that CAN be earned from said trauma.)

The Death Penalty is wrong, plain and simple, it costs too much, it is too easy to make a mistake and send the wrong person to death (even with the debilitating costs entailed in appeals). Conservatives are standing on this ideal out of emotional principal and no fact.

What is the benefit to society gained by putting such animals to death?

There is no benefit beyond the feeling of satisfaction that lasts about two seconds that is commonly known as "revenge."

How is is better then a "Natural Life" sentence without the p
ossibility of parole that would ensure the criminal died in prison?

Arguing that because prisoners can watch cable TV and "enjoy" the rest of their life in prison is absolute and utter poppycock. No one enjoys prison, especially not for the rest of their lives. Seriously, have you ever heard anyone WHO WAS ACTUALLY IN PRISON extoll the virtues of living there? F that, the argument is a cop out. If you think prisons are too cushy, then your attacking the wrong subject. Prisons are horrible for everyone living in them, because you lose your basic human privliges. Whether or not a prison is actually punishing is a seperate argument seperate from the Death Penalty, and is generally made by people with no first-hand experience of penal systems.

[B]Is the "benefit to society of putting the worst human animals to death worth the risk of potentially putting the innocent to death? [B]

Since there is no benefit to society, finacially, or morally, putting a person to death is a solely emotional reaction that not only has no basis in fact, but also is a barbaric emote that would equate us to barbaric civilizations thousands of years old.

The Death Penalty is not MURDER, it is REVENGE, revenge is a fundamentally flawed concept that results only in disappointment and despair.

Interesting injection of class hatred/envy/warfare into a debate with rather straightforward questions. Perhaps you could start a new thread called-"Why don't we start executing these wealthy crooks?" I'm sure there is plenty of meat to grind on that one! If I had read into the questions-"What other crimes should be subject to the death penalty?" I might have added "shoplifters", "check forgers", and "welfare cheats."

As stated before, society no longer has to worry about the criminal repeating his/her crime.



With death, there is ZERO possibility of the individual ever re-entering society. Those sentenced to "Natural Life" sentences have the opportunity of re-entering the world and committing more crimes. Maybe not through legal channels, but the possibility of escape is very real. Ted Bundy escaped from law enforcement twice, for example, and continued to murder after those escapes.




As a long time supporter of the death penalty, this is what changed my mind. The very real possibility that innocent victims are put to death is something I can not stomach. I know that some cases are cut-and-dry and I would agree that those people need to be put to death. But as long as humans can make errors, the death penalty is wrong. Can you live with the death of an innocent person, maybe even someone you know, being put to death for a crime they did not commit? I can't, and it's this very idea that has turned me away from the death penalty as a solution to crime.

About the only thing that has yet to be mentioned is threat of the death penalty often comes in quite handy during plea bargains, partcularly when there was more than one individual involved in the murder. Helps insure some guilty people do not walk free, fre to kill truly innocent victims.

And how many people lie and implicate innocent people or shift the majority of the blame to another involved party to lessen their own sentences? Helps insure some innocent people do not walk free, while the real criminal gets an opportunity to live and possibly even be released from prison.

As good reading material about the subject of imprisonment and its effects on people, read a great first-hand account, in The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

Any imprisonment affects one deeply. If a murderer is imprisoned for life, he still give something back to society, if he (or she, to be PC) makes liscense plates or something. And how long lasts the satisfaction that someone has been killed because they killed as well?

I hear this all the time: "the killer didn't give the victim a second chance why should we give the murderer a second chance?" Well, for one, becuase it's not the government's job to sink to the law-breaker's level of depravity. Rape the rapists? No, that's a little barbaric. A life in jail is no picnic, but it ensures that the person will never strike again. Of course, it is clear that SOME murders should be executed. Timothy McVeigh, for one.

And how does a different maximum penalty effect this? Convictions are seldom obtained on testimony of a cohort in crime alone. Usually requires other evidence. The fact is if life without parole is the maximum sentence you cannot get a plea bargain without giving the possibility the murderer someday walks free. Also, once someone is serving life with parole, punishment for any murders while incarcerated is limited.

About the only reason for the death penalty is for the families of the victims. In short, revenge. A life term without parole virtually guarantees the criminal will never get out to repeat his crimes. Also I do firmly believe that a great many people are convicted of death penalty offenses by well meaning but over zealous law enforcement using very weak forensic evidence and psuedo scientific methods to prove their cases. Blood spatter evidence jumps to mind. It is one of the weakest types of forensic evidence as there are too many variables that cannot be known in each situation for the technican to make some of the very sweeping but supposedly rock solid claims that they make. This is only one example, but that alone has changed my mind from a death sentence proponent to one who is now not so sure about it. phil

I don't want to get into a debate over plea bargains here, but the notion of keeping a punishment which may kill innocent people for use to obtain 'evidence' from one criminal to use against another is appalling to me. How reliable can evidence from a felon be when it is obtained by reducing their own sentence?

Where the state is concerned, the Death Penalty is not about
revenge. It is about punishment that fits the crime.

There are so many cases that deserve the Death Penalty,
yet it is not imposed (for whatever reason). For instance,
Charles Manson. If anybody deserves to die for what they
have done, it is him (he murdered a woman who was over 8
months pregnant). Yet, he is serving a life sentence.
So, please keep in mind that the Death Penalty is not handed
out very easily.

There are certain crimes that go so far beyond the scope of
what is tolerable by society, that there is really no other way
to sufficiently deal with such crimes. There is a line that should
never be crossed, and when it is, the punishment should be
absolute and final - The Death Penalty.

Charles Manson was given the death penalty, but it was abolished in 1972 and sentences were changed to life in prison. link

The following link has a lot of interesting information, including these tidbits: link (PDF)


3,504 people are currently on death row in this country. considering that 12 states do not have the death penalty, that is about 92 people per state that sentences people to die. Sounds like the death penalty is handed out a little easier than one might think.

"Since 1973, over 100 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence."

The actual number is at 113 as Allan Gell has just been found not guilty and released from prison. - link. 100 people that could have been murdered by the government. 100 innocent people allowed to die because we want revenge.



I would like you to define that line. Exactly what makes one murderer get life in prison while another gets death? Is it a body count, say if you kill 2 people you get life, if you kill 3 or more you get death? Or is it the way the murder is committed? If you stab someone once and they die you get life, if you stab them 12 times you get death? How do you define that line? And that still doesn't help the innocent guy that is wrongly convicted.

Well, I don't know what to tell you about the innocent individuals
that may have received the Death Penalty in the past. I have
great optimism that as time rolls on the chance of convicting
and sentencing (to death) innocent individuals, will become more
slim (no pun intended). With the advances in technology
(i.e. DNA) it is now much easier to ascertain the innocence of
individuals.

Having said that, I will reiterate that I am still a strong proponent of
the Death Penalty. There are some cases that absolutely warrant
such a penalty. It really must be dealt with on an individual, case-by-
case basis. I cannot draw that line for you in exact terms. And,
yes, there must be absolute proof of guilt, and in many cases (like
the one in Florida) there is no question.

Cases that involve rape or other sexually horrendous crimes, followed
by murder MUST receive the harshest penalty possible.
We canot condone, in any way, shape or form, such unimaginable
acts against the children and women of our society. There is no excuse
for it, and to dole out a life sentence is NOT ENOUGH. There are
rules in every aspect of LIFE. When rules are broken there are
consequences.

The individuals that have committed such crimes knew what
they were doing was evil and wrong. And they knew that if
they were caught and convicted they may very well receive the D.P.
That possibility didn't stop them from doing what they did.

Exactly - so why is the state now getting blood on its hands? Why is the state committing premeditated, cold-blooded murder when it does not stop these "worst of the worst" (which, not all death penatly cases are) murderers.



Ignoring the obvious question of why it doesn't matter if a man dies - how is sentencing someone to life in prison Condoning these acts? And lets be real here - the worst of the worst criminals don't get just one life sentence, but usually something like ten life sentences set to run consecutively - which is an essentially natural life sentence - and prison is no picnic... no one wants to go to prison, esp for the first time (which often, the serial killers are first timers). To my knowledge, when I babysit and send a kid to time out (taking them away from their other playmates and out of their "society"), I'm not condoning their actions. Just because I don't physically spank the kid doesn't mean I think it was okay for them to do what they did.

As you know DP- I am pro-death penalty- but in the issue of executing innocent individuals- unfortunately, I think the opponents are right. It goes beyond DNA testing, as we were shown in the OJ trial, it also takes competent and honest cops and prosecutors, to establish "chain of custody" for evidence etc. I remember one judge in Texas telling a man that was being convicted of capital murder that was complaining about the competency of his lawyer (the public defender was actually sleeping during the trial! ) and the judge said "I only have to provide you with a lawyer, nothing says I have to provide you with a good one". I have seen lawyers literally visit a defendent for the first time 15 minutes before trial begins on a murder 1 charge, and this wasn't "back in the day" - this was last year. There is simply not enough funding for your average everyday defendent (read- not national news worthy) of a capital offense to put up an equal defense to the prosecution- so alot of innocent poeple get put on death row.

I am sorry DP, but in this thread and in the other, all you have done is repeat the same thing again and again, about how bad these people are and how much they deserve death. And while you may be right about them deserving death, as I have addressed many times that is an emotional reaction with no basis in the legal system. You have not addresses any of the points against the death penalty, except to aknowledge that you dont know what to say about innocent people being executed, and you cannot draw the line on who 'deserves' to live or die.

No matter how often you re-assert that your personal emotional response is based in fact, it isnt, and you have done littel to demonstrate that it is.



This is another thing that really concerns me. Absolute, unquestioning surety of guilt, like in the florida case? In that case we have 6 seconds of footage of the man talking to then leading away the victim, apparently she goes willingly. Damning to be sure, but is that complete unquestioning surety of guilt? Enough to take away his life? Not by a long shot. If that is the kind of 'absolute' evidence for which you would apply the death penalty, then I hope you never sit on a jury.



Thank you for that heartfelt emotional plea explaining your opinion on the matter, but thats what it is, an emotional argument voicing your personal opinion. While nobody would agree that crimes against children are particularily heinous, somebody else might feel that crimes against the elderly are even more heinous, or crimes motivated by race, or whatever, and that would be [i]their opinion.[/]

And the Justice system does not (or should not) CARE what your collective emotional opinions are, thats not how it renders its decisions.



I am not sure if that was supposed to be an argument FOR the death penalty or not, but your own words would seem to make clear that it did not act as a deterrent in these cases.

Once again, revenge is not the business of the state, neither is first degree murder. Even without the horrible inequities in the system (innocents convicted, people convicted on the basis of race) there is still no moral or practical justification for putting people to death.


I have asked before, I will ask again, I think this is the seventh time I have asked and nobody has answered: Can anyone give me any reason FOR the death penalty at ALL, that is not the emotional knee-jerk of "But they are really bad!"?

I believe in proper punishment and for certain killers the proper punishment is death. This is my short and sweet answer.

Now my current opinion on the death penalty?
Cease it at once. It has to many flaws and to many people on death row. I live in Illinois where a former (criminal but his criminal activities are unrelated to this post) governor halted all executions because with new DNA evidence 11 people on death row were found innocent. This is in Illinois which has a pretty solid crime and convict rate. What does this lead me to?? That innocent people were probably killed....George W Bush allowing the most innocent people to die with his tenure in Texas. I am for people paying the ultimate price but only when they are ultimately guilty. By this I mean multiple DNA links that provides conclusive evidence, muliple eywitnesses, video tape, confessions I mean the whole 9 yards the guy has to be absolutely guilty.....like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy guilty. I do not have a problem with killers being executed. I have a problem with people being put on death row w/o conclusive DNA evidence, by 1 eyewitness or by unrecorded confessions. I think the death penalty is the right measure in certain cases but as of right now it needs to be halted and revised.

There is no strong evidence that a single innocent individual has been executed since the death penalty was reinstituted in 1973. Not one single case. Innocents being executed is a myth. Of course murderers being paroled and killing again is not. The existance of the death penalty results in plea bargains where murderers can be put away for life, without the possibility of parole, which save costly court trials.

Revenge...What is so wrong about a state taking vengence upon those who prey on innocent citizens. I see no problem with it. Some people are just emotional basket cases who find revenge is always wrong. A life for a life, is a moral standard that has existed for a long time. "Vengence is mine" claimed an Old Testament bigshot. I guess if he can take revenge, the state can seek revenge for the deaths of innocent citizens.

I keep seeing people use the term murder to describe executions. Murder is a legal term. Since the executions are legal, they can't be termed murder. It is simply an appeal to emotions.

There is one strong case in Virginia , Hugo, a man whose last name is Coleman- Virginia executed him a couple years ago, and are refusing to release a DNA sample that will probably exonarate him, the reason they are fighting so hard to keep this from being released. If the supreme court allows this DNA to be released and tested, it will probably be the very first absolutely proven case were we have in fact, executed an innocent man. There are several other cases that are now suspected of killing the wrong person, but this one will be landmark if they allow the release of the evidence.

Coleman was convicted based on hair and blood evidence, witnesses who saw him near the crime scene and the fact that the DNA testing available at the time put him in the 2% of the population that could have left that evidence. He knew the victim (his sister-in-law) and he had a prior sexual assault on his record. If this is the best that proponents of innocents being executed can come up with I can sleep soundly tonight without worrying about the death penalty killing innocents.

First, let me say that in principle, I am in favor of the death penalty. However, in practice, it seems to have no benefit.



This is the big misperception about the death penalty--people assume it is cheaper than putting someone in prison for life. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Millions Misspent: What Politicians Dont Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty. There have also been cases where municipalities have gone bankrupt from capital punishment cases, and where they have refused to prosecute because of the costs.

Knowing that the death penalty actually increases costs brings the first question into heightened focus: How exactly does society benefit? What do we get for this extra money we're spending? The answer seems to be NOTHING. No decrease in crime, no better society, no heightened awareness of consequences. So, you're left with the punishment should fit the crime. I can't argue that philosophically--it should. But should it continue to do so given all the other costs associated with it? Are we as a society better off because of it? It certainly seems like the answer is an emphatic NO. So, why have it, if we don't benefit from it, but simply have to deal with all the extra baggage and costs it brings?

This, of course, is utterly untrue.

There have been literally dozens of people on death row released because outside, usually extra-legal agencies have investigated the crimes and found proof that they were innocent. This evidence does not simply turn up, it has to be investigated and found. We are not talking about one or two cases, but dozens in the last 10 years.

Now given the limited time and resources of these agencies, they do not bother investigating the cases of those people who have already been executed. It serves no point, as the ultimate price has already been paid, right or wrong. Its not that no innocent people were executed, its just that nobody has bothered to check yet.

However, you do the maths. Is it really possible that, under scrutiny, all these death-row inmates have been exonerated, and yet none of the people executed could have been had their files been subject to the same scrutiny?

If you truly believe that, and I cannot see how you could, then I must ask: what exactly happened in the last 5 years that suddenly all these innocent people are being convicted, while apparently, by that logic, before that such a thing never happened?



Riiiight. So, anyone who sees a problem with the state taking third party revenge after the fact must be an 'emotional basket case'? Well, if we are getting into name calling, I think anyone who wants to see people killed even though there is no societal benefit whatsoever is a bloodthirsty maniac. My silly name-calling has as much validity as yours... So since neither holds much water, how about you stop insulting people who disagree with you?

The fact that someone in the old testament took revenge once is not exactly what I would call ironclad foundation for the modern 2004 state doing so. Things have changed a bit since then, even if you believe any of it actually happened.



As I said before, this is a tautology, a circular argument. "X cannot be wrong, because we passed a law saying it is right". By that logic, You could not call Apartheid racism, as South Africa passed a law saying it was legal and normal.

I understand it is legal (in only the US among modern western states, and only in some states of the Union) but that does not make it right. Killing with premeditation is murder, the fact that some states have made it legal does not alter that fact.

I am sure the opponents of the death penalty have a lot of resources and a strong incentive to show that innocents have been executed. Despite this, they cannot find one proven case since the death penalty has been reinstituted.

Let me list five studies that give evidence that the death penalty does prevent innocents, you know us people walking the street, from being murdered (yes, murdered. Not legally executed by the state).

1) Emory University Economics study found that each execution, on average, prevented 18 murders.

2) University of Houston professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesni found that death penalty moratoriums contributed to more murders. They found that the suspension of executions in Texas in 1996 resulted in 90 additional murders.

3) Buffalo Professor Liu found that the death penalty not only is a deterrent but also increases the effectiveness of other deterrence methods in reducing murder rates.

4)Clemson Univ. Professor Shepherd found that each execution results in five fewer murders and that murders of both blacks and whites decrease after executions.

5) FCC economist Paul Zimmerman that each state execution resulted in , on average, 14 less murders a year. He assigned the value of human life at $5 million thus concluding the average execution saved society $70 million a year.

Now, we have all these studies showing that executions save lives. Not one example of an innocent person being executed. We have nothing here but the emotional appeal that the state is a murderer when they execute murderers. Under this appeal to emotion the state is a kidnapper when they place someone in prison and a thief when they impose taxes.

By the way, Roger Coleman failed a lie detector test given a week before his execution.

Please feel free to read my post above, where I dealt with this. Do not the dozens of death row victims exonerated by extra-judicial investigation count for anything?



I am sorry, you are going to have to provide some links to back these statements up: statements which are, on the face of it, utterly absurd.

Are these 'researchers' assuming that every single person executed would have gotten out of prison somehow and then killed on average 18 moe people each? (despite the fact that only a handfull of mass murderers in the entire history of the US have ever killed that many)

Or are they perhaps assuming the the deaths of each and every one these people wuld have somehow convinced 18 other murderers to change their minds? Since 1976 there have been some 860 executions in the US. Do these researchers really manitain that, had they not been executed, another 15,600 people would have been murdered?

Considering most authorities cannot agree on wheither the death penalty is a deterrent at ALL (and general consensus is that it is not) where did these fantastic numbers come from?


If, in fact, every executed person prevents 18 murders, then in 2003, the US should have executed another 880 people, and by that maths, the murder rate in 2003 of 16,000 would have dropped to 0.

There are many reasons against the death penalty, and most of them have been listed here, far more than just calling the state a murderer. The fact that you have not chosen to address them does not make them not exist.

On the other hand, there are no practical reasons whatsoever FOR the death penalty. Now you are trying to make a case here that there is one, that executions are a fantastic way of preventing murders, at a rate of 18 to 1 according to one unsourced study. I find this argument... unlikely, and I also find it interesting that the rest of the western world has not become aware of this startling way of preventing huge numbers of murders, as only some states in the US still believe in Capital Punishment...

Link

Serious doubt about guilt seems reason to believe that innocents have been executed, as does a startling number of people released after being found innocent after being sentenced to die.



So executing him was okay, even if he was innocent of murder, because he had a prior sexual assault (which he had already served his sentence for) and knew the victim?




Revenge is an emotional response that the state has no business in displaying.




Then we will refer to it as homicide from now on!

Homicide - 1 : a person who kills another 2 : a killing of one human being by another. - webster.com

The abstract to the Emory University study can be found at this site.

Vermlillion's use of statistics is quite poor. The reduction is from the number of probable murders without the death penalty. Like all other deterrents I am sure the marginal benefit does decrease with numbers of executions. You can't eliminate murder completely, regardless of the deterrence. Of course all these studies are in align with rational choice theory. Let me quote from the Emory U. study.


"According to the standard economic model of crime, a rational offender would respond to perceived costs and benefits of committing crime...Capital punishment is particularly significant, in this context, because it represents a very high cost of committing murder (loss of life). Thus, the presence of capital punishment in a state, or the frequency, with which it is used, should unequivocally deter homicide."

Basic economics, make something more expensive and the demand is lower.

Yes, it is homicide. That is what is listed as the cause of death of executed scum in
Texas.

The findings of the Zimmerman study can be found here. A very good read. Obviously a very detailed study that went to great lengths to eliminate any statistical biases.

Question1: What is the benefit to society gained by putting such animals to death?

I believe there is no "benefit to society" gained by putting these "animals" to death. With the appeals process, it costs more to instill the death penalty than to keep them in jail for life. I dont know about anyone else, but death seems "cruel and unusual" to me. The only reason someone could argue for the death penalty is "justice," which in this situation means "revenge," and I for one do not believe in vengeance

"An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind" - Mohandas K. Gandhi



Question 2: How is it better then a "Natural Life" sentence without the possibility of parole that would ensure the criminal died in prison?

For one, it is more cost effective. Two, we can use prisoners to make positive contributions back to society (making licence plates, job training). They may die in prison, but they can die as productive members of our society.



Question 3: Is the "benefit to society of putting the worst human animals to death worth the risk of potentially putting the innocent to death?

No. And about 1/7 of those put to death turn out to be innocent. At least if they are innocent and stay alive in jail, there is a possibility of being let free some day.

If you want to use religious references consider the fact that the New Testament, what Christianity is based on, continuously teaches that forgiveness is all important. Oh and there is that old "Thou shall not Kill" thing.

Anyone can redeem themselves according to the teachings of Jesus. Even people like Charlie Manson. All they need to do is repent. Who is to say that in the future even Charlie Manson will not repent his sins?

However, having said this I really don't see the need to bring religion into this discussion and I do not suggest that someone should not pay for their crimes. This is why I support the concept of creating "Natural Life" sentences.


The facts are simple.

The Death Penalty does not deter crime
The Death Penalty costs society a ton more then long term imprisonment
The Innocent can and have been put to death
Society gains nothing from the Death Penalty

One can always find scripture to back up his position.
An eye for an eye?

If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath on the Charles
Manson "redemption."

Your "facts" do not hold much water

Prove to me that The D.P. doesn't deter crime? Have you
been inside the minds of would-be murderers, who have
opted not to cross that line? There is no way to gauge
whether or not the Death Penalty would deter others from
murder (the ones who were deterred are not going to
raise their hands and admit it).

Money is the last reason I would give for being
against the Death Penalty. You cannot put a price on the lives
that are lost at the hands of murderers. So, to NOT
impose the correct punishment, because it would cost
more, is irresponsible.

Show me statistics of innocents that have been put to
death. I would be very interested in learning just how
many innocents have actually been executed thus far.

Society has nothing to gain by putting a murderer behind
bars, for life. Then he is still society's burden.
It wasn't enough that he murdered, now he has to be fed,
clothed, housed, given medical care, etc. He does not
deserve to be taken care of in even the most basic ways.

You displayed no FACTS here, sir. You simply gave your
opinion on the matter, which you are very much entitled to.

Another old testament reference. Again I ask. What about "Thou Shall Not Kill"?



There is not a single statistic in any state to suggest that the death penalty deters crime.




You say this and yet you go on to say:



The fact is that depending on the state, the Death Penalty costs anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 more in inprisionment costs alone. This doesn't even include the extra costs of the legal process to get the death penalty.

More people given the death penalty die of natural causes in prison then die from their sentence. This is because of the extremely long appeals process. It appears to me that society would be equally served by a natural life sentence. The murderer would still die in prison of natural causes, the cost to society would be less, and the occasional person who is wrongly convicted forever has the chance to clear themselves even while serving their sentence. Once the sentence is carried out on someone who got the death penalty, the chance to clear themselves is forever lost.




Here, I will repost a link for you. Is not the doubt that everyone who gets the death penalty is guilty enough to question it?

DPIC

In regards to your assertion that the Death Penalty does NOT
deter crime, I say this: How can one offer statistics on such
a thing? Go around and survey criminals, "Has the presence
of the Death Penalty hindered you from committing acts that
may warrant the Death Penalty?." There's no real way of
gathering statistics on that.

When I spoke of society being burdened with the criminal
who should have been put to death I'm not talking about
monetarily burdened. I'm speaking of the physical and
emotional burden that he will be on "the system." His
physical and emotional needs will have to be met to
whatever degree is within his rights. You see, despite the
actions which should have left him with zero rights, and six
feet under, if he is given life in prison he can claim certain
rights. It's a waste of time, personnel, and air to keep
him alive.

Thank you for the link you provided. I did read it, but it
didn't give any conclusive statistics. It did point out the
fact that our justice system is flawed. Mistakes occur.
There is indeed prejudism. Etc. We need to raise the
standards and make some changes that will ensure guilt
is indeed proven. But, the Death Penalty must remain
an option.

Sadly, there are certain cases that require the Death Penalty
be imposed. For the sake of society, as a whole.

I said statistics and you're suggesting a survey. Statistically, the is no appreciable decrease in murder in states with the death penalty. These is little difference in murders per capita between states with or without the death penalty.



Have you considered the emotional damage done to society when the death penalty is imposed? What of the emotional damage done when someone who has been put to death is later found to be innocent?

And how many people do you know that are emotionally troubled over people in prison? Compare that to home many you know who are emotionally troubled about the death penalty.

As a side note here is another link. Op Ed on Death Penalty

I have considered the emotional damage that is done to a society
regarding murderers, and their actions. That takes precedence
over what kind of emotional reaction may occur when the man receives
proper punishment for the crime he CHOSE to commit.

Several years back, there were cameras in the courtroom,
for the arraignment of the murderer of Polly Klaas. I do not
recall the name of the man who took her precious life. I do
remember one thing very clearly. When the judge asked him
a question, he turned toward the father of Polly and he flipped
him off and blurted some obscenity. You tell me. What are the
emotional reprocussions of that act? It still sits in my memory
as a great reason we should blindfold and gag these creatures
before we bring them before cameras, families, judges.

I reserve my emotional concern for those individuals who deserve
it. There are rules in our society. The best way to avoid
the death penalty is to avoid any sort of crime that might put one in the
wrong place at the wrong time (which seems to be happening so often
according to your statistics).

My math could be wrong but i think a convicted murderer would have to make an awful lot of license plates to cover the ~$30,000 to $50,000 per year cost of incarceration (my figures may not be exact but I heard them somewhere-please correct me if I'm way off.) And don't forget to add a few plates to that number for their retirement years! Should these plates be sent to the victim's family?

As I said previously on this thread, the possibility of innocent people being executed is the only deciding factor for me. Don't kill them unless there is absolute certainty of guilt beyond all possible doubt! If there is, then let them have it! ... As gently as possible of course! That's more than the victim got!

So the emotional damage of one is all important, while the emotional damage to another is irrelevant, I assume because you disagree with their thinking. What of the emotional damage done to jurors who sentence someone to death and later find that the man was innocent? What if that evidentiary discovery is made AFTER the mans sentence is imposed? The emotional argument is pointless to begin with. I merely tried to answer your claims, though I don't feel it has any place in the discussion. Furthermore, it is emotion rather then logic that drives supporters of the death penalty.




Incidents like this happen all over with all crimes. Rape, assault, extortion, etc. It isn't a valid argument for the DP. Some criminals can be outright jerks, regardless of the crime they commited. Some criminals are heartless animals. Most criminals are just selfish people who don't want to work for what they want. Some criminals are highly emotional people who loose control and assault or even kill someone. These are in no way defenses for their actions, but simply a point that all criminals are not simply animals.

They committed their crime, they should do their time. Sentences should be harser, parole banned, and prisons should be work camps devoid of luxuries.

But the risk of killing an innocent person due to over zealous police, poor skills of a public defender, etc, etc, is enough alone to remove the death penalty from the table and replace it with a natural life sentence.



What does wrong place at wrong time have to do with "my" statistics?

I'll challenge the proponents of the Death Penalty again. Provide just one statistic showing a dramatic drop in capital crime in any state after they enacted the death penalty. Or provide even one statistic showing a reasonable difference in per capita murders between a any state with the death penalty and any state without.

I personally have tried to find such statistics to support my former pro-death penalty position. I could not. It is one of the factors that swayed me to oppose it.

I am interested in discussing this issue with other Christians. I don't think the religious aspects of the debate have a place in this forum (though I might be wrong) but I would like to know how Christians who support the Death penalty see this as not conflicting with their religious beliefs. I am asking to discuss it with Christians because I am one. Others are welcome, but I doubt I would be much use discussing religious doctrines in religions I know little about.

If you would like to discuss the religious aspects of this issue please feel free to PM me. Last I knew, the Religion Forum was shut down so it looks like PMs are the only avenue to discuss this part of the issue currently.

I look forward to hearing from all of you.

I've already produced studies that show a positive correlation between enforcing the death penalty and reduction of murders. If additional punishment does not deter crime, than why do we punish criminals at all?

Let me quote the abstract from the Emory U. study

I reviewed the Study at: Emory Study

I freely admit that the mathematics of the study is way over my head. However, there is a very interesting Table in the study on page 44.

It is figure 1. "Murder Rates in Executing and None Executing States"

The table details the numbers per capita as they compare between the categories. In the beginning of the chart (1977) it shows executing states having a much higher number of murders per-capita then non-executing states. This makes sense as these states had a reason to examine the death penalty, as in the high murder rate.

From 1980 to 1988 The number dropped for executing states while the number also rose for non-executing states to the point where executing state dipped below no executing states in numbers of murders per capita in 1989.

However, for 1990 on, both rates rose and later took a downward trend that started in 1992 and continued until 1999 (which is the end of the chart).

What I find interesting, is that for the last 10 years of the study, the two numbers were very close to each other with the non-executing states dipping below executing state on several occasions.

So I have to ask, at least since 1990 why the numbers are so close to being equal if the Death Penalty is a deterrent?

Most likely the reason is there is also a causal relationship between homicide rates and the imposition of the death penalty. States with a higher murder rate are almost certainly to be more likely to impose the death penalty than states that don't. An upsurge in homicides might also lead to juries selecting to impose the death penalty more often. The mathematics, of any real analysis, of almost any societal problem, have to be fairly complex. The operation of the death penalty does not occur in a vacuum, many factors have to be considered when determining the true effect of the death penalty on the murder rate.

Now a basic statistic whose math will not go over anyone's head.

From infoplease.com homicide rate USA 1960-2000

Year Homicide
rate
1950 4.6
1951 4.4
1952 4.6
1953 4.5
1954 4.2
1955 4.1
1956 4.1
1957 4.0
1958 4.8
1959 4.9
1960 5.1
1961 4.8
1962 4.6
1963 4.6
1964 4.9
1965 5.1
1966 5.6
1967 6.2
1968 6.9
1969 7.3
1970 7.9
1971 8.6
1972 9.0
1973 9.4
1974 9.8
1975 9.6
1976 8.8
1977 8.8
1978 9.0
1979 9.7
1980 10.2
1981 9.8
1982 9.1
1983 8.3
1984 7.9
1985 7.9
1986 8.6
1987 8.3
1988 8.4
1989 8.7
1990 9.4
1991 9.8
1992 9.3
1993 9.5
1994 9.0
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
1997 6.8
1998 6.3
1999 5.7
2000 5.5
2001 5.6


Notice the huge surge in the homicide rate during the period after the USSC ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. Obviously there are many factors involved in the homicide rate, probably the percentage of the population that consists of males between 17 and 25 is the most important. But no one can argue that there are not stats that support the death penalty is a deterrence nor that quite complex studies have not found that the death penalty deters crime. Just as rational choice theory would suggest.

Slightly off topic but i see this arguement all the time and recently had the chance to discuss it with my father-in-law.

He said people always say "an eye for an eye" but forget the rest of the passage which is "vengence is mine sayith the lord".

As a Deacon, he sees this to mean that Vengence, or Judgement is to be left to God.

To that end this supports the first part of the quote "One can always find scripture to back up his position".

Just thought it would be interesting to everyone.

I concede that there are statistics showing a deterrence, I wish I could understand the study better to see how much of a deterrence, but you did have one and it seems to support your position.

That being said, the biggest argument for me is the fact that the innocent might be put to death. That I simply can not reconcile. The secondary argument is that the Death Penalty costs so much more to to society financially, then life imprisonment. Since more people die from natural causes on death row then their sentence you have to wonder if it is worth it.

So, the question becomes, is the death penalty enough of a deterrent to murder to make the financial cost difference worth it and more importantly, the risk of putting an innocent person to death worth it?

Would a natural life sentence be less of a deterrent?

You all are talking about the risk of killing and innocent... What about the risk of a murder escaping and killing more innocents? Far more people are killed by escaping prisoners (serving life sentences) than are thought to have been executed wrongly.