Death Penalty

I don't support the death penalty for a number of reasons. Most importantly, I have a moral objection to the state (and by extension myself as a citizen) taking someone's life when they have already been removed from being a threat to society by imprisonment. Therefor, even if all of my other objections (some of which will follow) were solved so they were no longer issues, I still would not want to have the death penalty.

Besides my fundamental disagreement with the death penalty, there are a number of problems associated with it as implemented in the United States. First, studies have shown that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is no greater than that of life imprisonment. The death penalty is also more expensive than life imprisonment (this is largely because of the substantial increase in the appeals process associated with the death penalty). There is also the fact that the death penalty cannot be reversed if it comes to light that an error has been made. Someone can be released from prison, but the state cannot raise them from the dead. There are other problems as well, such as the unequal administration of the death penalty.

 

I have no moral qualms over the DP.

The appeals process needs to be seriously reformed first. After 12 months or so, take them out and put in a bullet or two. No need for a media circus, quiet and anonymous is better.

All inmates on death row that don't have DNA testing in their case should have them changed to life sentences instead so we avoid executing innocent people.

Crimes: serial killer, mass murderer, sadistic rapist, serial pedophilia, torturer (multiple accounts)

From Amnesty International:

"A 2007 study of death sentences conducted by Yale University School of Law revealed that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white.
In addition, killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes to deciding what charges to bring."

*Even the life sentencing option isn't perfect. The prison-industrial complex gives states a hefty bill just for things like designing cells, three meals a day, heating and cooling options, etc. The cost of keeping someone in prison for life is too expensive, so these need to be brought down fast in light of our enormous prison population.

 

If a person is a continual threat to society, whether behind bars or not, they deserve the death penalty. This includes mass murderers, serial killers, sadistics, ect ... A crime of passion or revenge does not warrant this.

I strongly feel that a person should never be executed unless 1) they agree to it 2) they confess to murder 3) Proof beyond doubt. Proof beyond doubt should include multiple witnesses and clear video footage or anything else that would put the person as the killer. DNA, fingerprints, hearsay or other multiple forms of evidence should not be used as a reason to execute.

 

Until the day exists when we can, without a doubt, execute only guilty people, I will oppose the death penalty.

It makes me sick to my stomach knowing that we have killed countless innocent men over the years, and whatever benefit we gained from killing the guilty, it is outweighed by even the execution of one innocent person.

 

Until we come up with a better solution, I favor the death penalty. The sentence is less cruel than shutting someone in an 8 x 8 cell for years on end and endlessly. However, a death penalty should be a no doubt decision. If that is the case, the penalty should be carried out within 90 days of the sentence.

However, there might be an alternative similar to the one expressed in the 1-star Rotten Tomato movie, "Escape from New York." We could build living facilities on two (one for men and one for women) of the remote, open ocean Aleutian islands where supplies could be air-dropped. The convicts would be free to set up their own rules or non-rules and live life in the open -- yet society would be protected from their presence. They could even be injected with tracking devices to ensure their locations.

The cost savings would be enormous -- no wasted land, facilties, guards, etc. The population would remain stable with new convicts replacing the casualty rate. Justice would served more humanely at a lower cost.

 

I support it. I'd argue it could/should be used more often.

 

I am pro-death, but I'd prefer a more faster process.

 

No. Until courts can be 100% sure that a defendant is guilty (never) there is no reason to risk a person not guilty to a death penalty.

 

In general, I would be against it, but then there is always the example of someone who does deserve it.

I think it should be an option, but one that is only used in complete certitude.

I don't think that people on death row are the ones crowding the prisons, though.

 

I used to be 100% supportive of the death penalty, but over the years my confidence has been seriously shaken. I don't agree with keeping guys on death row forever, but the thought of killing an innocent person gives me great pause. The main reason I cannot say I'm against the death penalty is because there are some people that plainly deserve it (IMO).

The burden of proof should be: Beyond any doubt. Is there a way to legally define that?

 

Principle yes, application no.

 

Yup. Sure do.

 

I don't know honestly.

I only voted for the DP because I think there is maybe 0.0000001% of cases where it's the right decision.

Here is an example where I thought maybe it was a sad but good decision:

To translate, Eid Al Adha is basically the equivalent of Christmas, generally the happiest day of the year for Muslim kids, and this rape happened at the morning prayer of Eid Al Adha which is essentially a celebratory prayer following one month of fasting and to be followed by family get togethers, exchanging gifts, etc.

Then again, I believe God gives life and He should be the only one to take it away.

Also, regarding those statistics, it's important to compare them to the size of the population, and also to study the fairness of the process to come to a decision. Iran kills people for things that the US would never kill for, plus Iran is a significantly smaller population. You have to keep those things in perspective.

 

Death penalty prisoners are not over-crowding prisons, but they are the most expensive to keep. However, if the Aleutian island punishment is accepted, we could expand the populace to persons sentenced to 20 years or more after being convicted of violent crimes.

The non-violent criminals (forgers, burlars and other assorted thieves, embezzlers, etc.) with multiple convictions could be sent to a better climate but still in Devil's Island mode. Again, they are removed from society at a fraction of the prison cost.

 

Recreating "Papillon" is not a good idea.

I will admit that your other thread had some good ideas.

I wouldn't add this to it.

 

If we could be 100% assured of no errors or bias, I'm still against it.

It's barbaric. Even if there are individuals who deserve it.

 

Everyone here should take the time to watch The Life of David Gale starring Kevin Spacey... great, great movie...

 

Everyone that has life in prison should be able to choose between life behind bars or death.

 

But it's civilized to stick a human being in an 8 x 8 cell for all but one hour per day for 30, 40 or 50 years? I sympathize with your feelings on this, but would you choose to live in low-level torture without hope of release or would you choose to die painlessly?