Views on Capital Punishment

[Baron Samedi]

I am currently researching it for a school activity... and America seems to be cropping up tonnes. However, I am interested to know your views for and against Capital Punishment as well. Once I get some free time, I will post up mine.

Please be level-headed. Also, in your views please state what types of crimes deserve Capital Punishment, in your opinion.

Should we have it? Is it good? Why should/n't it be practiced?

[wrist cutter]

I think it should be the criminal's choice if they want to be punished for their actions or not.

[MissWem]

I'm not sure where wrist cutter is going with his argument...but...anyway..

I think captital punishment should be practiced for a few reasons.

1.to remove from society people whom cannot,or are unwilling to reform to become a better person.

2.to remove from society murderers whom had no sympathy for others so therefore deserve no sympathy for themselves. Many obviously don't regret it, and leaving them to rot in jail is a waste of tax payer's money so we should dispose of them.

3.to reduce the number of prisons needed and the population of the prisons...

4.encourages society to behave better.

well...that's about all I can think of, blunt, I suppose but people are far too nice to those who don't deserve it.

[Boba Fett]

[COLOR=green] The death penalty is the most extreme, final and most difficult to achieve of all punishments under the United States legal system. It is also one of the most hotly contested issues in the media, from local to national. Almost everyone has an opinion on this issue, and there are statistics that support both sides of the debate. The whole issue eventually boils down to a simple question, ?Should the government execute criminals??
In my opinion, the answer is a resounding yes.

Thirty-eight of the states have the death penalty; twelve have opted to use life imprisonment instead of execution. Opposition to the death penalty in the United States is unfounded; the Fifth Amendment, when taken literally, states ?Or be deprived of life, liberty or happiness without due process of law?. Quite clearly it is stated in this amendment that the states may take someone?s life after the person in question has been given legal due process, convicted and sentenced to death. Therefore, the death penalty is legally sound.

However, many argue that the death sentence is immoral. They say that if United States citizens aren?t allowed to commit murder, why should the government be allowed to? Why should the rest of society ?stoop to their level?? I find this argument disgusting; from ancient times people have known that the punishment must fit the crime. If proper and appropriate punishment is not given to criminals, there will be incentive for people to commit crimes so they can profit from them. If a jury recommends the death penalty, the person in question clearly has done something that warrants that punishment. Currently it costs more for a criminal to be put to death than for someone to be imprisoned for life. I feel that this is well worth the cost, and the lengthy legal absurdities that occur before an execution are more than enough to weed out the innocent.

All in all, I feel that the federal government should continue the death penalty to remove dangerous, unstable and evil people from society, as punishment to their crimes. This also brings closure of the most final kind to their victims. Most importantly, states are given the right to execute those who have been given due process and sentenced to death. States have the right to carry out death sentences, and until a constructional amendment is made to strike out the portion of the Fifth Amendment that allows the death penalty, it should be carried out in all states that want to use it. Overall, the death sentence is a fair, justifiable and legal for states to use as they see fit.

*Tosses $0.02 into the fountain of opinion*[/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]I think it should be the criminal's choice if they want to be punished for their actions or not. [/B][/QUOTE]
:laugh: [color=red]Yeah, like that's gonna go over!
[b]Judge[/b]-Okay mr. Manson. You've brutally murdered 35 people. Do you want to live or die?
[b]Mr. Manson[/b]-Live, because it's evil spelled backwards!
I really can't see that working, and I've seen pleanty of things try to work.
As for myself, I don't think that capital punishment is necessary in every situation.
Of course, if you brutally murder somebody, yes kill the guy.
I think they should bring back stocks and other forms of public humiliation as consequence to some less serious crimes. And if you get convicted for something worse than stealing or breaking an entry, they should cut off a finger or brand you.
Yes, I'm a very nasty person right now. I think child molesters and rapists should definately have their thumbs cut off then get branded with an R or an M. These people get off way too easily.[/color]

[Patronus]

[color=006699]I just hope you know, Chibi and Derelict, wristcutter is being sarcastic.

I'm all for it. I mean, if you can't take what you dish out, then don't dish it out.[/color]

[DeathBug]

*Reflects on the hilariousness of capital punishment being brought up by the poster with "Mr. Men" in his signiture =)*

Okay, done with that.

Anyway, while I will admit that the system by which criminals face capital punishment needs to be refined and the room for error *must* be minimized, it is still a good idea.

There are some crimes so hideous that any person that commits them simply cannot be allowed even the opportunity to re-enter society. It's sad, but true.

I'd love it if capital punnishment became outdated because no one else was committing the crimes that called for it, though. That'd be great, but rather idealistic.

[Semjaza]

Charles Manson didn't physically murder anyone, by the way.

I have no preference either way. I figure that if someone did something that atrocious to deserve death, they'd probably be a lot worse off if they sat in a prison the rest of their life. Prisons, on the other hand, are overcrowded as it is. I'll leave that up to the courts, I have no vested interest in one form or the other.

Personally, I kind of think I'd enjoy prison... aside from the backdoor shinanagans.

[Guest rttocs77]

Killing people actually costs more money than just having them serve a life sentece w/out parol in prison. I don't think we should kill the REALLY bad criminals, I think we should send them to Siberia, or somewhere like that, and make them to manual labor and lead a ******, horrible, miserable, life.

[Chaos]

Haha, Sem. That and Dancing Hitler made me laugh.

I'm a vivid lover of "eye for an eye." If you shoot someone, you should be shot. Stabbed someone in the face? You get stabbed in the face.

And all that deal about mentally retarded people? They should get the same treatment. Call me a bigot and all that ^#%* if you want, but that's the way I feel. A life for a life. No matter what, aside from self-defense, if you strike first and kill a person out of malice, you should die.

Which would also be a problem for me if I go insane.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i]
[B]Charles Manson didn't physically murder anyone, by the way.
[/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=deeppink]I knew that. I was just picking a name at random. I could've picked my own, but the whole writing it down thing...[/COLOR]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Leh [/i]
[B][color=006699]I just hope you know, Chibi and Derelict, wristcutter is being sarcastic.
[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=indigo]Wow, really? You're joking. I wouldn't have been able to figure it out without you telling me that![/color]
[color=violet]Anyway I think if this country brought back public humiliation we'd have a lot less crimes to begin with. SO what if it does something to their self esteem *shrugs* I don't really care.
And it actually costs more to keep a criminal behind bars with no opportunity for parol than to kill the person.
You have to keep the person alive right? That means you have to pay for food, those lovely orange jumpsuits, the cost of keeping up the prison, heat and the moth eatten matress.
Face it, up north some homeless people try to get arrested just so they can get a meal and a place to sleep.
Now to kill a person-you need the room, the chair and some lethal injection. I don't know why they bother with a clean syringe every time they kill someone. They dude's gonna die anyway. Stick him with the rustiest thing you've got and get it over with.[/color]

[Mitch]

[size=1] It's the deed that teaches, not the act. Murder and the death penalty are not opposites that cancel each other out, but they are similars that breed their kind.[/size]

[The Original]

I'm personally not an advocate of capitol punishment. I do realize that mass murderers are horrible people, but I don't think an "eye-for-an-eye" execution is the answer. I think another type of punishment would be better; for example, if a man raped someone, he should be castrated. If someone kills, they should be given life in prison. If someone kills at the age of 25 and is given the death penalty, heor she doesn't have a chance to repent for his or her crimes. I think it's pointless to take away 25 years of life when there's at least 50 more to repent. Theologically, that's also my views on hell ( Someone makes a wrong religious choice for 80 years, and suffers for the rest of eternity? Eternity is a [u]long[/u] time.) But I suppose that's off-topic. The bottom line is, I don't believe it's right for a human to take another human being's life, no matter the circumstance. But I may just be naive.

[Baron Samedi]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Deathbug[/i]

*Reflects on the hilariousness of capital punishment being brought up by the poster with "Mr. Men" in his signiture =)*
[/quote]

Oh, I know. But it makes it oh so much more fun when I come in and kick their butts, especially if they underestimate me ;)

Ok. Capital Punishment. I used to bve an advocate of it, because surely, it would act as a deterrent, be cheaper on the state, and an eye for an eye works well.

However, my research has unearthed a lot more stuff [which you guys have now stated as well] When I get home I can add actual statistics to my post, but for now...

Cheaper: It is actually more expensive to issue and enact the detah penalty, than it is to support them in jail for the rest of their lives.

Deterrent: It isn't. In no state that has the death penalty, has the murder or [other] instances decreased. There is no noticeable decrease in cases whenever a state introduces or removes the death penalty.

Eye for an eye: I agree with this, but injection does not really do anything... it is easy. Some more... exotic form of dispatchment should be practiced, but then, that is cruel and inhumane and in breach of human rights. So, go vigilantes. Anyhow, we can't. And killing them does nothing. We should make them live in jail, to rot for the rest of their lives. And don't put them in solitary, especially the child molesters. All criminals hate molesters or rapists, so the authorities put them, separately. Which is crap, they deserve to be punished.

Accidents can also happen. I believe, from memory, that 12 or so people have been killed, and then post-humously pardoned when it was found that they were innocent. What a big relief. I'm sure it made them feel much much better.

All in all, the death penalty, whilst somewhat appeasing the vengeful feelings of the victim's families, does not really solve the problem, and may in fact create more.

[UnsungHero]

I am against capital punishment.
Why?
What if somebody was framed or wrongly accused?
What then?

An innocent person would be executed and I think the definition for that is MURDER!

Besides having someone killed is letting them off too easy. Having them slowly rot and live out the rest of their days in solitary confinement - THAT is punishment!

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by UnsungHero [/i]
[B]I am against capital punishment.
Why?
What if somebody was framed or wrongly accused?
What then?

An innocent person would be executed and I think the definition for that is MURDER!

Besides having someone killed is letting them off too easy. Having them slowly rot and live out the rest of their days in solitary confinement - THAT is punishment! [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, if you're instantly going to think of a worst-case scenario, you'd have to do away with a lot of things.

In that case, you shouldn't have a hydroelectric dam, because it'll break and the pent-up water will flood the surrounding area. You shouldn't have cars because everyone will get drunk and ram them into trees and street-lamps and we'll all die. We shouldn't wear shirts because they'll get snagged on fences and we'll trip and slowly choke to death.


Not that I'm making light of the process by which a person is proven guilty, but if the only reason you're against it is because the possibility of a guilty person being executed exists, then you're reasons for being against the death penalty lie soley on a single assumption. You speak as though an accusation is all a person needs to be sent to the chair. And "framing"....this isn't TV; that doesn't happen that often.

What if every single person who was sent to Death Row had a doen eye wittnesses to his crime, and was guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt? Would you still be opposed to it?

I am well aware of inequities that exist within the system, but as forensic and other investigative technology improves, the margin of error decreases dramatically. The argument that "they might be innocent" is valid as long as the possibility of that happening remains considerable.

Besides, if a person isn't guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, they shouldn't have been found guilty in the first place. I know that's a hollow rationalization, but it indicates that the flaw you bring up applies not just to the death penalty, but then entire judicial system, in which case, we hve a whole other problem.

If juries are convicting people so easily, then the problem isn't with the death penalty at all. In theory, upon the correction of the supposedly-flawed trial process, use of the deatgh penalty would be fine, theoretically.

Having someone slowly rot out...is just too damn expensive.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i]
[B][COLOR=green]
However, many argue that the death sentence is immoral. They say that if United States citizens aren?t allowed to commit murder, why should the government be allowed to? Why should the rest of society ?stoop to their level?? I find this argument disgusting
[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]You find it "disgusting" that people would object to state-sanctioned murder? Okay.

I say "murder" because murder is a pre-meditated killing, which capital punishment obviously is. It's a killing based on a decision by a court -- a group of jurors.

Having said that, I'm not against the death penalty for moral reasons. I'm against the death penalty because, in mosts cases, it's simply not harsh enough.

Let's take Timothy McVeigh, a man who killed many people in the Oklahoma City bombing. He died painlessly; he even apparently smirked at one of the victim's relatives as he died.

Frankly, I'd rather that these criminals be put in solitary confinement for the rest of their life -- solitary confinement with the most basic living conditions.

Of course, I'd probably be labeled as cruel for wanting that. But, I'd only subject the very worst criminals to such lifelong treatment. I believe that the very worst violent criminals should be treated in this way...despite the cost. It's a fate "worse than death". Death [i]isn't[/i] the ultimate price. Not by a long shot.

So that's my view.

My other objection simply relates to the utter hypocracy of capital punishment. The state has laws about murder, yet a court is allowed to sanction that very act? It makes no logical sense. I don't care whether you object morally or for any other reason -- but generally speaking, the state shouldn't be doing things that it legislates against.

It would be like punishing a criminal by sanctioning a public rape of them or something. It's stupid and utterly pointless...and hypocritical to a laughable degree.

So I guess those are my two objections. The first one is my main one...while the second is more a basic practical observation. Australia (like most modern democracies) did away with capital punishment decades ago. However, I don't think that we are harsh enough with our most violent criminals. A mass-murderer shouldn't be able to use the Internet or watch TV...they should be in solitary confinement, with minimal excercise and minimal dietary requirements. And that's it, for the rest of their life.

I'd certainly want that punishment for people like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. Death is too easy...and too painless for such people. It's almost the desirable way out, when compared to other possible consequences.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

I agree with James wholeheartedly on this one. It's simply appauling to see the practice of captial punishment in the United States where we say every citizen has "unalienable rights to life"?

Not only that, it's the easy way out for most criminals. Sure, our Penitentiary system is flawed and provides too many luxories. But lock them in a box for the rest of their lives and give them bread and water.. that's what I say. If we gave punishments that reflected the severity of the crime (instead of posh coushined beds and nice cable TV), people would probably re-consider their actions. If I were to kill someone, I'd much rather just die, then spend 60+ years in jail.. how drall.

I don't think I could say anything more without sounding reduntant.

Bravo James! You've taken my veiwpoints and constructed them into well-constructed works of forum art. Bravisimo.

[UnsungHero]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i]
[B]Well, if you're instantly going to think of a worst-case scenario, you'd have to do away with a lot of things.

In that case, you shouldn't have a hydroelectric dam, because it'll break and the pent-up water will flood the surrounding area. You shouldn't have cars because everyone will get drunk and ram them into trees and street-lamps and we'll all die. We shouldn't wear shirts because they'll get snagged on fences and we'll trip and slowly choke to death.

. [/B][/QUOTE]


That's different!
Talk about shutting me down.
In the end it's the jurys decision on the convicted person's guilt or innocence.
Just because the jury has a view doesn't mean they're correct.

Has anyone seen the Movie "To Kill a Mocking Bird"?
Where they correct in Tom Robinson's sentence?

See - people's views and opinions aren't always correct.



I guess you're right. If there is sufficient evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person convicted is in fact guilty then, AND ONLY then should he be executed.

Look at me I'm reliving the days of my Legal Studies class. :cross:

[Baron Samedi]

Here is an article I found. I
_________________________________________
June 26, 2002

The US Supreme Court has overturned one of their own decisions from just 12 years ago, by ruling that it is unconstitutional for convicted criminals to be sentenced to death by a judge, after being found guilty of murder by a jury. This effectively invalidates the death sentences of 168 people. None are going to be released or anything, they'll probably be switched to life in prison, with some being retried to some extent, with a jury deciding if they deserve life in prison or capital punishment.

The decision concerned instances in which juries determined defendants' guilt or innocence and judges alone decided their punishment. The court held that such sentences violate defendants' constitutional right to trial by jury, rejecting the argument that judges can be more evenhanded.

"The Sixth Amendment jury trial right ... does not turn on the relative rationality, fairness or efficiency of potential fact-finders," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for a majority that included an unusual alliance of conservative and liberal-leaning justices.

So this case has nothing to do with the court's approval of execution as a punishment; it's all about the unconstitutionality of a judge alone deciding if someone should get the death penalty or not, after a jury finds them guilty. This is somewhat iffy, since in many/most other types of crime, the punishment is largely up to the judge, if you are found guilty by a jury. So the court seems to be drawing a line between a judge picking 20 years vs. 40 years, and life in prison vs. death. Their decision is immediate law, and is applied retroactively, so everyone on death row now who was put there by a judge's decision alone is somewhat in limbo, but none can be executed without a jury saying that's their fate.

So how about this issue in a more general sense?

Capital punishment is always a hot issue. I've changed my opinion on it several times over my life, from an absent support as a kid, to opposition in my early twenties, to a sort of ambivalence at this point. I can remember having to write some sort of a school paper about capital punishment when I was in maybe 8th or 9th grade, and I had no problem listing reasons people supported capital punishment, but couldn't think of any to oppose it, and had to ask my mom. Her reasons were sort of squishy, as I would describe them. She held that it encouraged violence in society, was morally wrong, etc. I don't really agree with those, but I can see them as valid PoVs.

The reasons you most often see for capital punishment are numerous, and virtually all of them have an equally-effective opposing argument.

It would be wonderful if the threat of death were a deterrent to criminals, and that having a death penalty for murder actually made any difference in crime; but since it doesn't, the main reason to have such a punishment is sort of shot down. People contemplating murder don't think, "I'll do it since I'll only get 50 years in prison, rather than the death penalty." They think they'll get away with it, if they think at all. Most don't, most are just random killings during robberies, or in the heat of passion, etc.

The other problem with capital punishment is all of the innocent people we've killed thus far. Hundreds of people on death row have been exonerated, proved innocent by new technology (DNA testing, mostly), or new evidence in their cases, corrupt prosecutors or judges, etc. Obviously if that many have been found innocent before they could be killed, lots of others would have been if they weren't dead already. I don't really subscribe to the theory that killing even one innocent person is too heavy a price to pay, but I can see how some would make that argument, and we've indisputably killed some people who were innocent of the crime they died in punishment for.

There is also the argument that there's no point in giving someone life in prison w/o the possibility of parole, since why pay for them to live fifty years when they'll never, ever be free? It's wrong to put a price on human life, but if the someone is a vicious, dangerous criminal who has forfeit their right to live in a civilized society, why not just be rid of them? Why keep them alive in prison forever? The problem with that is that there is such a heavy additional burden of proof on capital crimes, years of appeals, expensive trials, lawyer fees, etc, that it's not really any cheaper to do all that to kill them, compared to a much cheaper trial and then years in prison. And see the previous paragraph about the numerous wrongly-convicted people, if your suggestion is to remove the right to appeals.

There is another issue with it in the US, and that's the racial aspect of it. I don't have exact figures in front of me, but as it works out, black men convicted of capital crimes are like 10x more likely to be sentenced to death than white men. There are similar odds for rich vs. poor. What it breaks down to is that the rich, or really anyone who isn't really poor, is virtually never sentenced to death, and if you are white you are very unlikely to get that sentence either. If you are black and so poor that you can't afford a decent lawyer, you are really in deep ****. Does the fact that black murderers get the death penalty much more often than white murderers mean that there should be no death penalty? It's certainly open to debate. Another way to look at it is to say that at least some of the murdering scum are being executed, and that it's too bad that more whites who deserve it aren't getting it, but it's not like they're shoveling black car thieves into the abattoir while white rapists get a vacation to Hawaii. How you look at it is up to you.

What I would do is have capital punishment, but use it only very sparingly, only for the most heinous crimes, mass murder, serial rapists, etc, and only in open and shut cases. Of course the problem there is who determines if that case qualifies. I'm not available to evaluate them personally, sorry.

Most of the rest of the Western world has abolished capital punishment, while truth and justice nations like Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Russia, and China all use it as extensively as the US. Puts us in interesting company, eh?

If you're reading this from outside the US, you can feel free to *tisk tisk* my typically-American blood-thirsty barbarism, in daring to think that some criminals actually deserve to die for their crimes.
__________________________________________

Many convicted murderers are later found innocent, and have been pardoned. It is impossible to pardon a corpse. In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review. They found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed."

_________________________________________

Just some random information. I have over 11 pages of it but you'd get bored.

Still, it is interesting stuff, no? I believe that they should be made to suffer for their crimes. Here are some arguments for each side...

_______________________________

Common reasons in support of capital punishment

The Bible The Bible requires the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes, including sex before marriage, adultery, homosexual behavior, doing work on Saturday and murder. It even calls for some criminals (e.g. prostitutes who are the daughters of priests) to be tortured to death by being burned alive. Most Christians, with the exception of those in the Reconstructionist movement, feel that many of these grounds for the death penalty no longer apply to Christian societies. U.S. However, Bible passages are still used to promote the retention of capital punishment for murderers; some advocate that homosexuals also be executed.

Justice/Vengeance Many people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice and/or vengeance. They feel that certain crimes are so heinous that executing the criminal is the only reasonable response.

Deterrence Many people feel that the death penalty will deter criminals from killing. This does not seem to be confirmed by an analysis of the available data. However, it feels intuitively correct for many people. 1 to 6

Value of human life: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." (Edward Koch).

Cost: Once a convicted murder is executed and buried, there are no further maintenance costs to the state.

Safety: Once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone.

Common reasons against capital punishment

The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament): Some Christians feel that they are no longer bound by the legal codes of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the death penalty is no longer required. Since the Bible was written, as society became more tolerant, we eliminated the death penalty for pre-marital sex, practicing a different religion, engaging in prostitution, homosexual behavior, blasphemy, rebellion by teenagers, etc. We should eliminate it for murder as well.

The Christian Scriptures (New Testament): Abolitionists often quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position. (That passage, John 8:7, was probably not written by the author(s) of John). She had been sentenced to death by stoning, but Jesus used a cleaver ploy to gain her freedom. On many occasions, Jesus taught about forgiving people who have wronged you.

The beliefs of the early Christian church: Some theologians believe that the early church was closer to Jesus' teachings than are the present-day churches. They were unalterably opposed to the death penalty.


Playing God: Executing a person kills him before the time of their natural death. Some Christians believe that God places people on Earth for a purpose. If we kill them prematurely, then we may be thwarting God's will.

Effect on society: Some feel that permitting premeditated murder is totally unacceptable, even if done by the state. Capital punishment lowers the value of human life as seen by the general population and brutalizes society. It is based on a need for revenge. It "violates our belief in the human capacity for change....[It] powerfully reinforces the idea that killing can be a proper way of responding to those who have wronged us. We do not believe that reinforcement of that idea can lead to healthier and safer communities." 7

Lack of Deterrence: The death penalty has not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the homicide rate. There are some indications that executions actually increase the murder rate. 1 to 6

Cost: The costs to the state of funding appeals by convicted murderers would more than pay for their permanent incarceration.

Value of human life: Human life has intrinsic value, even if a person has murdered another individual. The death penalty denies the sacredness of human life. Live is so precious that nobody should ever be killed, even by the state.

Unfairness: The mentally ill, poor, males, and racial minorities are over-represented among those executed. One pilot study of over 2 dozen convicted criminals on death row found that all had been so seriously abused during childhood that they probably all suffered from brain damage. Women convicted of murder are almost never executed; that is a penalty that is almost entirely reserved for men. A 1986 study in Georgia showed that persons who killed "whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites." 8,9,10 The Texas Civil Rights Project issued a report in 2000-SEP which was critical of the justice system in Texas. They made six criticisms which could probably apply to most of the states in the U.S. which still execute prisoners:

The defense lawyers are often incompetent. Judges sometimes appoint friends or political associates. Other times, no competent lawyer is willing to accept the case because of the poor compensation paid.

District attorney are given "unrestricted discretion" in deciding whether to seek the death penalty. Poor people, and members of minority groups are more likely to be targeted because of prejudice and bigotry.

Jurors who may support the death penalty, but have reservation about its use, are eliminated from jury duty.

Jurors are often not given the option of a life-without-parole sentence in murder cases.

The appeal process has "burdensome, if not impossible, procedures." The process seems designed to speed cases along rather than grant justice.

The rules appear to be in flux: the highest appeals court in the state reversed about one out of every three capital sentences prior to 1995. Since 1995, this has reduced to less than 3%.

The operation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles in Texas is severely flawed. They do not meet as a group to study evidence and discuss a case. Individual members are sent stacks of documents, and make their decisions via telephone or fax. 11


Chance of Error: Many convicted murderers are later found innocent, and have been pardoned. It is impossible to pardon a corpse. In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review. They found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed."

Horror: Some consider capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment.

Sending a person to Hell: Some Christians believe that an individual who dies without being "saved" will go to Hell for eternal punishment. By killing the person before the time when they would have naturally died, we are eliminating any chance that they might have for salvation.

The family of the prisoner is victimized and punished by having their loved one murdered by the state. Yet the family is usually innocent of any crime.

Lack of jury convictions: Some jury members are reluctant to convict in murder trials because of the possibility of executing an innocent person. Thus, many killers go free and are never punished.

Uselessness: Killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but the death of still another person.

_____________________________________

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by UnsungHero [/i]
[B]That's different!
Talk about shutting me down.
In the end it's the jurys decision on the convicted person's guilt or innocence.
Just because the jury has a view doesn't mean they're correct.

Has anyone seen the Movie "To Kill a Mocking Bird"?
Where they correct in Tom Robinson's sentence?

See - people's views and opinions aren't always correct.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Didn't mean to shut you down. ^^; The point I was try to get across is tht if person is executed when they were, in fact, not guilty, that isn't a failure of the principle of capital punishment; it's a failure of the judicial system. As a society, we should be constantly refining said system until the margin of error is minimized. Otherwise, chaos will ensue if no one has faith in the laws.

Dang, can you tell I study law?

[outlawstar69]

I'm glad to see that there is some intelligent convo here; other wise I wouldn't state my opinion. I'm a muslim; and am a religious person. It affects many of my views (not all of them though.). In Islam, I believe, (I'm not a religious scholar, so don't quote me on this as I may be in error), if a murder occurs it is up to the family of the victem to decide punishment. They can have either recompensation (blood money) or the murderer can be put to death. That's not perfect, but seeing as I have a short time here; that's all I will say for now.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by outlawstar69 [/i]
[B]I'm glad to see that there is some intelligent convo here; other wise I wouldn't state my opinion. I'm a muslim; and am a religious person. It affects many of my views (not all of them though.). In Islam, I believe, (I'm not a religious scholar, so don't quote me on this as I may be in error), if a murder occurs it is up to the family of the victem to decide punishment. They can have either recompensation (blood money) or the murderer can be put to death. That's not perfect, but seeing as I have a short time here; that's all I will say for now. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=violet]There's also a passage in the Koran that states:
[b]If a man is slain unjustly, his heir shall be entitled to satisfaction. But let him not carry his vengeance to excess, for his victim is sure to be assisted and avenged.-17:33[/b]
I'm no expert on Islam (heck, I found this passage in a book and put it into my notebook) but I think what this means is that, you may seek revenge on a wrong doing to someone, but don't take it to extremes since someone will be seeking vengeance on you for doing so.
So maybe public humiliation is the best course of action.[/color]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]When I was a junior in high school (which was seven years ago, so please excuse me if I use approximate numbers) I had to write a paper debating the death penalty. I approached the paper hell bent on writing why the death penalty was a just, efficient institution and deterrent. However, I ended up being swayed by research and developed an entirely different opinion than I originally began with.

There are obvious reasons why the death penalty should be abolished in the United States; perhaps most notable is its blatant hypocrisy. There are not so obvious reasons as well. It is roughly the same cost to imprison a person for life as it is to put them to death, and if we were to reform prisons and make them even more base (which I think needs to be done to help deter crime) it could be cheaper. Another reason that seems to shield itself from so many peoples? eyes is a true life sentence is a death sentence in the most horrible fashion, leaving the guilty with no hope and only basic routine.

What really changed my mind was the amount of people that were sentenced to death then later found to be innocent. At the time I wrote my paper between 1900 and 1996 approximately eighty people had been released from death row because evidence of their innocence (not a legal technicality) was found. During that same time period over twenty people have been found to be innocent after they were put to death ([i]edit:[/i]I think Baron Samedi has more accurate statistics in his post). At least life imprisonment gives the innocent a glimmer of hope. Although I don?t remember the exact quote I always thought that Ben Franklin had the right idea so many years ago ?it is better to se a hundred guilty men free than to convict one man for crimes he did not commit?. [/color]

[Boba Fett]

[COLOR=green]James, Drix, I respect your opinions on this matter and agree with several of your points, most notably the conditions with which prisoners are treated once in jail.

However, I think that it should be up to the population of the particular state or nation where the crime is committed whether or not the death penalty is employed. Many European nations have the death penalty, but haven't executed anyone in several decades. I find this to be very hypocritical, as these nations should either take their justice systems seriously, or remove punishments from their legal systems if they are unwilling to carry them out.

I personally feel that someone who has killed another person should be subject to the death penalty. It's simply a matter of fairness. Under the current prison system in the United States, criminals get free college educations, three meals, decent housing, TV and various other privileges and facilities provided for their use free of charge. Is this how we "Punish" people in our society?

The Death Penalty is the way that the United States deals with violent criminals, and only after a lengthy series of appeals, which can take years. Like any other thing in life, the legal system isn't perfect. Mistakes are made. Every once in a while, an innocent person may be killed. This is certainly regrettable, but it doesn't happen often. I'd be very interested in finding out how many people have been acquitted of their crimes after they were executed. I can understand this happening in the past, but with today's technology it is much harder to make the kinds of grievous mistakes that get people killed.

I seriously doubt that our prisons will be made harsher environments, especially with today?s current political environment. In a perfect world, prisons would be a punishment. In today?s society, they are a reward for despicable behavior.

In the end, the world isn?t perfect. In a perfect world, society would lock away hardened criminals for life, but this world is far from perfect. The Death Penalty removes the most undesirable members of our society, and gives them the worst possible punishment for their crimes.

I, for one, sleep better at night knowing that serial killers, murderers and other evil people are no longer with us. [/COLOR]