Death Penalty

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff]Okay I am too lazy to think up a really good hey look title right now, so I'll just get right to it. Okay so I really got the idea from watching tonight's episode of Grey's Anatomy where in the end this Serial Killer was put to death by lethal injection. [spoiler]Which is AFTER they saved him from a brain hemorage which is kinda stupid IMHO [/spoiler] but anyways it got me thinking why not just make everyone else think and re-hash an old subject with new members present? Good times to be had by all eh?

Okays Death Penalty, should it be allowed? Is it really our right as humans to decide who lives and who dies? What does everyone think on this subject right now?

Deep thoughts aside right now in New York state we have no death penalty just life imprisionment without parole. Which I guess isn't too bad until you consider that the state is in one of its worst deficites ever. And we have people in State prisons who have willfully murdered showing no remorse. And I'm not talking about killing an adult, I'm talking about murdring babies.

But that said I'm torn. Do we really get to play God? What gives us that right? And what ever happened to good old public humiliation and maybe some nice branding?

Okay well now it's getting late and I have to go to work in the morning which means I wake up at 5:30 to get to work at 7. I hope to get some good thoughts. And I hope not to get lost ciao.[/color]

[chibi-master]

Aw, now you've gone and got ME torn!:animedepr

Y'know, I think that there are some criminals that commit awful crimes and don't seem to care that should be setenced to death. But as you said, who are we as people to decide who is worthy of death?:confused:

I'm not sure if there's a definite answer to this question, CHW...:animesigh

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]I think my entire thoughts can be summed up by when I posted [URL="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?p=828837#post828837"][COLOR="Blue"]here[/COLOR][/URL].

It needs to exist. I just don't think it needs to be used every time.[/FONT]

[Octopus Royalty]

The death penalty is murder. Revenge is not justice. If we use the death penalty or even vote for it, we are as bad as the criminals.

Edit: we are as bad as the criminals anyway. By killing and pretending it's for a just cause, we are not only setting a bad example for future generations, we are also defeating our own purpose.

[Drizzt Do'urden]

Well death is just unavoidable sometimes. Why should somebody who rapes and murders young women and children (just an example) be allowed to spend the rest of his life not ever having to worry about the struggles of life. The person sentenced to life in prison knows that he'll get 3 square meals a day, get plenty of outdoor time to do with what he pleases. He/she will get to watch televison, an hour of computer time a day,

It just doesn't seem fair to me that children that lose their parents to cold blooded murder have to struggle and suffer while their parents killer gets to lounge around.

I'm all for the death penalty, as far as the argument goes about us as humans deciding who dies and who doesn't. For one, they felt they could do that and deserve it in return, and for two they show no regard for human life they deserve that in return as well.

[Octopus Royalty]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']Well death is just unavoidable sometimes. Why should somebody who rapes and murders young women and children (just an example) be allowed to spend the rest of his life not ever having to worry about the struggles of life. The person sentenced to life in prison knows that he'll get 3 square meals a day, get plenty of outdoor time to do with what he pleases. He/she will get to watch televison, an hour of computer time a day,

It just doesn't seem fair to me that children that lose their parents to cold blooded murder have to struggle and suffer while their parents killer gets to lounge around.

I'm all for the death penalty, as far as the argument goes about us as humans deciding who dies and who doesn't. For one, they felt they could do that and deserve it in return, and for two they show no regard for human life they deserve that in return as well.[/QUOTE]
Humans are capable of error, even the "good" ones. What if someone was given the death penalty without being guilty. OR what if someone repented, but was still given the death penalty. It's much safer and more sensible just to let God do His job and keep our filthy hands out of it.

Also, have you ever been in prison? It's one of the worst places to be, where rapists and murderers will more likely than not get what's coming to them.

The most important thing is to keep people safe from offenders, which might mean spending tax dollars to keep them locked up or to treat them. But then again, our society made them the way they are anyway, so I guess what goes around comes around.

[Horendithas]

[FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Octopus Royalty']It's much safer and more sensible just to let God do His job and keep our filthy hands out of it.[/quote]How about for those of us who don't believe in such a being? Saying it's up to someone who's very existence is in question is a cop out. Also blaming society for making people that way is a cop out on individual responsibility and the consequences of one's actions.

Anyway, my opinion on this is the same as Allamorph's so I'll leave it at that.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Darren]

I personally LOVE Texas' take on the death penalty. (and no, that's not sarcasm)

I believe it's something along the lines of: If you commit a murder, are convicted of it, and there was at least two witnesses, (it may even be one) it's the death penalty. There's no ifs, ands or buts about it. (I'm not even sure if you're allowed an appeal process) Basically it's a fast track to lethal injection. Last guy I heard who got the death penalty, was killed a few months after he was convicted.

I like the death penalty in most cases. And eye for an eye, y'know? Who are we to decide who lives and dies? The real question is who are they to decide? Revenge is justice, but of course, that's just my opinion. Plus, the death penalty is necessary for a number of other economic reasons....

Why can't we go back to the old days where if you steal, we cut off your hands? They say it has something to do with cruel and unusual punishment, but killing for killing is the same thing and it still goes on. (Although I know there have been some prisoners on death row who've sued because it's cruel and unusual punishment)

They deserve it. That's all I'm saying.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Darren']I personally LOVE Texas' take on the death penalty. (and no, that's not sarcasm)

I believe it's something along the lines of: If you commit a murder, are convicted of it, and there was at least two witnesses, (it may even be one) it's the death penalty. There's no ifs, ands or buts about it. (I'm not even sure if you're allowed an appeal process) Basically it's a fast track to lethal injection. Last guy I heard who got the death penalty, was killed a few months after he was convicted.

I like the death penalty in most cases. And eye for an eye, y'know? Who are we to decide who lives and dies? The real question is who are they to decide? Revenge is justice, but of course, that's just my opinion. Plus, the death penalty is necessary for a number of other economic reasons....

Why can't we go back to the old days where if you steal, we cut off your hands? They say it has something to do with cruel and unusual punishment, but killing for killing is the same thing and it still goes on. (Although I know there have been some prisoners on death row who've sued because it's cruel and unusual punishment)

They deserve it. That's all I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]But the problem with the witnesses is what if these are false witnesses and they have it out for the guy.... You never know. Although I'm sure even in Texas they look things over. BUt still there are cases where innocent people are put on death row.

I'm pretty sure that even in TExas you're allowed a few appeals. And everyone does that. And it ties up the courts. Plus there's more torment for the victim's family.

In some instances like serial killers (see reasoning for this thread) and that jackass who killed his son because he had to pay child support (kinda makes me nervous to let my daughter go off with my ex because he hates having to part with 475$ a month) do deserve to die and this guy is obviously guilty. Also I believe Louisiana has the death penalty (ah, the South. Gotta love it) which makes me wonder why on earth the guy did it in the first place if he knew that killing his own child would mean he'd be killed as well. (Too bad they don't do the firing squad anymore eh?) You would think that the death penalty would be a deterant but I guess it isn't all the time. Maybe they should cut cable and stuff in the prisons. And institute some tortures, like watching Barney and friends and the old Barbie cartoons instead? It gets insurgents to crack.

In other situations though I wonder if maybe the death penalty could be too hasty. I don't know if New York has reinstated it or not. But anyways there's this case from about a year ago where this woman was beat to death when she went to confront the woman who had attacked her daughter earlier in the day. (This happened two blocks from where my ex's mom lives) And it took a while to find anyone who may have done the crime because of this whole no Snitching policy some people have. Well a few months ago the RPD believes that they found two people responsible. However their families are insisting that the one guy has witnesses saying he was out of town. Yes, I do know that of course the families will insist that the people are innocent. But for all you know they could be. That's why I'm torn.

As for the whole let God decide. I'm not touching that one yet. I believe in God, but I'm not about to force my beliefs on everyone. It's not my place. Besides, it's obvious that the killers took it upon themselves to be God. Doesn't it seem fitting that we should do the same?[/color]

[Drizzt Do'urden]

[quote name='Octopus Royalty']Humans are capable of error, even the "good" ones.
Also, have you ever been in prison? It's one of the worst places to be, where rapists and murderers will more likely than not get what's coming to them.

The most important thing is to keep people safe from offenders, which might mean spending tax dollars to keep them locked up or to treat them. But then again, our society made them the way they are anyway, so I guess what goes around comes around.[/QUOTE]

Okay where to begin, we'll start with the first point you made. IF a human chooses to cold bloodedly murder somebody, then by definition they are not one of the "good" ones. If somebody kills another in a mutual fight, or something of the matter. Defending themselves, or another then they may be a "good" person, and will most likely not be convicted of anything. Depending on the circumstances they may receive a few years in prison but they won't be considered for the death penalty.

By the by, I used to work in corrections so I do know what goes on in the inside of a prison. They're no longer like the Shaw Shank Redemption in which the prison's are a breeding ground for more murderers. Does it happen? Well of course it does, but not very often.

That brings me to your third point, which basically says to me that we should spend OUR tax dollars to keep the prisoners in solitary confinment for the rest of their lives? And I'm sorry, no matter how much society sucks, society didn't make them murderers. Their own decisions did, and don't give me this crap about unemployment and the economy. Peoples own decisions dictate what they do with some parental influence.

So killing somebody who without a doubt killed somebody else? Yes, and note I put without a doubt, if there is any for one they shouldn't have been convicted by a jury, and two if their is any doubt they should be sentenced to life in prison so they have a chance to appeal. Okay now on to the most ridiculous part, you mentioned what if somebody repents in prison. Well I purposly neglected to save that part of the quote due to the ridiculousness of it. IF said person repents then, 1 there was something to repent in the first place, and 2 they will go to heaven anyways so we will be doing them a favor. Eternal paradise and the like.....

[chibi-master]

Drizzt: 2, Octopus Royalty: 0

Sorry, but I have to agree with Drizzt on this one. He made some pretty good points. Well, actually, he made more than some good points. And Octopus Royalty, you sort of...didn't.

And as for the whole repenting thing...I don't care HOW much they regret what they've done, or HOW many times they've prayed. They could put a crucifix in their cell, for all I care! A criminal is a criminal who still deserves punishment. And I'm agreeing with Darren on the love of the Texas death penalty.:catgirl:

[Retribution]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']
That brings me to your third point, which basically says to me that we should spend OUR tax dollars to keep the prisoners in solitary confinment for the rest of their lives?[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Fun fact of the day:

It costs taxpayers [i][b]more[/b][/i] money to give someone the death penalty than it does to imprison them for life.

The death penalty is an attempt to balance the moral books. It has been said that when one person kills another, they too must die to "pay for it" or to "make it equal." I personally find this point of view disturbingly bloodthirsty. Generally speaking, executing a murderer [i]does not[/i] make the victimized party feel any better.

Furthermore, many states have the death penalty on the books but haven't executed a prisoner for decades. What this does is unnecessarily torment the victimized party by giving them a false hope the offender will be executed. The appeals process does indeed tear families apart emotionally, make no mistake about it. It's an unnecessary emotional roller-coaster to ride when the defendant is almost certainly going to live.[/font]

[Nerdsy]

[color=deeppink]Killing anyone is wrong, no matter how you try to justify it. I am vehemently against the death penalty.[/color]

[Shy]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Killing anyone is wrong, no matter how you try to justify it. I am vehemently against the death penalty.[/color][/QUOTE][size=1]Can you write a few thousand more words to explain your point of view? I fail to see how your opinion is a valid one unless it's forty-pages long.

Um, I'm in support of the death penalty for especially heinous crimes. It's a difficult decision to make, but there are those who are beyond any redemption or help. Any opposition I have towards the death penalty is really towards the complicated judicial system which convicts a man to death, only to allow him to spend the next 20 years making appeals.

-Shy[/size]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Fun fact of the day:

It costs taxpayers [i][b]more[/b][/i] money to give someone the death penalty than it does to imprison them for life.[/font][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]That's true. I'd have to look up why though. But I think part of it is because of all the appeals that a death row inmate is allowed to have.

[/color]

[TwistedChick]

Soul for soul, I say. It has nothing to do with money or politics, but equivalence. If a life has been taken, another life is the only thing of equal value.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Shy][SIZE=1']Can you write a few thousand more mroe words to explain your point of view? I fail to see how your opinion is a valid one unless it's forty-pages long.[/SIZE][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Never fear! Captain Verbosity to the rescue!

[QUOTE=Retribution][font=Arial]Fun fact of the day:

It costs taxpayers [i][b]more[/b][/i] money to give someone the death penalty than it does to imprison them for life.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
Without even reading any research on the matter, I'm inclined to agree that this is true.

But I'm nuts. We all know this. So it should come as no surprise that I felt the need to read said research. [URL="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf"][COLOR="Blue"]Here's one[/COLOR][/URL].

And upon reading this research, I am forced to conclude that simply stating death penalty trials cost taxpayers more money, while undeniably true, is [I][U]grossly[/U] [U]misleading[/U][/I]. It is an appeal to the pocketbook instead of the conscience—the implication being that the result is not worth the expenditure, regardless of the "morality" of the result. I find that this concept completely trivialises the overwhelming seriousness of the death penalty. And I support the consarned thing. :p

The linked research refers to Maryland's legal procedures, so my (and their) statements cannot be applied universally without slight concessions, but as I understand the research, the inflated costs are all in place to 1) ensure that such a serious action is even warranted, 2) to take as many measures as possible against mistrials and biased verdicts, and 3) to ensure that the defendant has a voice during the proceedings . . . which, really, could be looked at as part of the second, there. Essentially, we spend more money to make as certain as possible that execution is the correct way to go, and [I]not[/I] simply because we're looking to kill someone.

Costs may rise even in the pretrial section of the proceedings, mostly during the process of selecting a jury (vore dire). In order to even be a juror for a death-penalty case, the potential must be willing to deal the penalty out, meaning that a person who will never apply it [I]and[/I] who will always apply it cannot be allowed. Beyond that, the prosecution is allowed to strike ten jurors, and the defense twenty (biased in favor of the life of the defendant, here), which makes the selection process quite complicated. The more time state-appointed attorneys spend here, the more money the State has to pay them. (Roman, et al 11)

Trials in which the death penalty is sought tend to be longer and involve more resources than those in which it is not, most simply because the weight of the guilty verdict is so heavy. Obviously such trials will cost more money, if only because the jury must spend so much time secluded during the longer deliberations. Additionally, a defendant in a capital case is granted two attorneys instead of the customary one, so more money there. If a guilty verdict is reached, a [I]second[/I] trial is had to determine if the death sentence will be given. This additional session is necessary for determining if there are more mitigating or aggravating circumstances involved in the murder, and which weigh more. Again, more time, more money. (Roman, et al 13)

The appellate stage is interesting to me because cases where death is [I]not[/I] sought have the potential to incur more costs than cases in which it is. Non-death verdicts are routed through an additional appellate circuit (in Maryland), while death verdicts are taken straight to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Still with the "time/money" bit, but now the coin is reversed. Also, the appeal to the State is automatic in death sentence cases, so the step here is unavoidable, whereas non-death cases may cost more, but they do not always have to be appealed.

This step may cost more because the State Appellate has the right to expand the jurisdiction of their case if they feel that doing so may (ironically) prevent further appeals. Beyond that, appeals to US District courts or the Supreme Court are only taken if "...claims ... are federal or constitutional in nature." (Roman, et al 14)

In other words, the costs are on average greater to seek the death sentence simply because the measures in place in our (or Maryland's, here) legal system exist because we recognise the sheer magnitude of taking a life at all. It could be a lot simpler—i.e., you kill a guy, you die, end of story, sucks to be you—but instead the system takes greater care in these situations to ensure that justice is truly done.

One can say "if it costs more, why not do away with it entirely", but I feel that that ignores the tremendous seriousness the topic is given by the legal system. I have said previously that the Law required death for murder; the system here is the human attempt to balance the Law's callous impartiality and our sense of mercy and understanding.

[LIST][*]Roman, John, et. al.,. “The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland”. The Urban Institute. March 2008. Retrieved 24 Jan, 2009. Website: [URL]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf[/URL]
[/LIST]

[CENTER]----------------[/CENTER]
[QUOTE][FONT="Arial"][I]The death penalty is an attempt to balance the moral books. It has been said that when one person kills another, they too must die to "pay for it" or to "make it equal." I personally find this point of view disturbingly bloodthirsty. [/I][/FONT][/QUOTE]
No, not bloodthirsty. (It only feels that way because there is, unfortunately, blood involved.) Just impartial. Unfeeling. Emotionless. There's a reason the statue of Justice has a blindfold on.

And there's a reason we don't. We have the ability (and the charge, really) to temper that impartiality. Just because the Law demands it, we are not necessarily forced to mete it out. That's partially why these cases take so freaking long. :p

[QUOTE][FONT="Arial"][I]Generally speaking, executing a murderer [i]does not[/i] make the victimized party feel any better.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE]
(Irony, thy name is . . . thy username.)

Generally speaking, however, murderers are not executed to make the victimised party feel any better. The Law exists to maintain order and justice, not to make people feel better about being wronged. Again, callous, but like I've said before, the Law is callous. It is up to us as people to assist the recovery of those victimised. The Law remains separate.

And to my mind, if someone dear to you is killed and the only thing you can think of is that the person who killed them must die, then that person's death will not appease you. Such a mindset is incredibly destructive. And you [I]certainly[/I] have no place at the court proceedings if you feel that way.

[QUOTE][FONT=Arial][I]Furthermore, many states have the death penalty on the books but haven't executed a prisoner for decades. What this does is unnecessarily torment the victimized party by giving them a false hope the offender will be executed. The appeals process does indeed tear families apart emotionally, make no mistake about it. It's an unnecessary emotional roller-coaster to ride when the defendant is almost certainly going to live.[/I][/font][/QUOTE]
The obvious route here to [I]me[/I] is then to place an impassible ceiling on the appellate process. There are many instances where the appellate process is merely taking advantage of the Double Jeopardy clause—by which I mean that you can be tried as many times as you want if you're guilty, but as long as you're found innocent once, that's all you need.

An appeal cap would essentially say "we're willing to accommodate you so far in your quest to prove yourself, but after that we're not going to listen to you any longer". Appeals are one thing, for they allow for examination of details that might have been swept under the rug in an attempt to hasten the death verdict (which is unfairly biased). But endless appeals are a waste of time.

However, I have to question the reason for your statement there. Didn't you just say that execution doesn't make the victimised party feel any better? And yet you're using here a victimised party who needs definite closure via execution. The "hope the offender will be executed" and the "unnecessary . . . when the defendant is almost certainly going to live" seem to have you contradicting your own views. Will execution make them feel better or will it not?

[CENTER]----------------[/CENTER]
[quote name='Nerdsy][color=deeppink']Killing anyone is wrong, no matter how you try to justify it.[/color][/quote]
Okay.[/FONT]

[chibi-master]

Allamorph...3 words and a smiley for you.

Wall of text.:animedepr

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]I'm nothing if not thorough. (^_^)[/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

[QUOTE=chibi-master]Allamorph...3 words and a smiley for you.

Wall of text.:animedepr[/QUOTE]If you read that entire post... [I][SIZE="1"]*gives you a cookie*[/SIZE][/I]

Anyway, since so much has already been said...[quote=Shy][size=1]Um, I'm in support of the death penalty for especially heinous crimes. It's a difficult decision to make, but there are those who are beyond any redemption or help. Any opposition I have towards the death penalty is really towards the complicated judicial system which convicts a man to death, only to allow him to spend the next 20 years making appeals.

-Shy[/size][/quote]I'll go with that since it fits exactly what I think of the death penalty.

[chibi-master]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']If you read that entire post... [I][SIZE="1"]*gives you a cookie*[/SIZE][/I] [/QUOTE]

I did. I've no idea why, but I did...:animedepr *munches mah cookie*

[Retribution]

[quote name='Allamorph']Never fear! Captain Verbosity to the rescue![/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Yeah, you sure ain't kidding.

[QUOTE]And upon reading this research, I am forced to conclude that simply stating death penalty trials cost taxpayers more money, while undeniably true, is [I][U]grossly[/U] [U]misleading[/U][/I]. It is an appeal to the pocketbook instead of the conscience?the implication being that the result is not worth the expenditure, regardless of the "morality" of the result. I find that this concept completely trivialises the overwhelming seriousness of the death penalty. And I support the consarned thing. :p[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to appeal to one thing or another - someone said something fallacious (execution is cheaper) and I corrected them. And no matter which way you slice it, my statement is absolutely true.

[QUOTE]The linked research refers to Maryland's legal procedures, so my (and their) statements cannot be applied universally without slight concessions, but as I understand the research, the inflated costs are all in place to 1) ensure that such a serious action is even warranted, 2) to take as many measures as possible against mistrials and biased verdicts, and 3) to ensure that the defendant has a voice during the proceedings . . . which, really, could be looked at as part of the second, there. Essentially, we spend more money to make as certain as possible that execution is the correct way to go, and [I]not[/I] simply because we're looking to kill someone.[/QUOTE]
And I'm glad we do so. To execute without being certain (which happens quite often) is quite sad. Indeed, the very existence of the death penalty is responsible for its exorbitant cost. It's got only itself to blame.

[QUOTE]Costs may rise even in the pretrial section of the proceedings, mostly during the process of selecting a jury (vore dire). In order to even be a juror for a death-penalty case, the potential must be willing to deal the penalty out, meaning that a person who will never apply it [I]and[/I] who will always apply it cannot be allowed. Beyond that, the prosecution is allowed to strike ten jurors, and the defense twenty (biased in favor of the life of the defendant, here), which makes the selection process quite complicated. The more time state-appointed attorneys spend here, the more money the State has to pay them. (Roman, et al 11)[/QUOTE]
Fun fact!

[QUOTE]Trials in which the death penalty is sought tend to be longer and involve more resources than those in which it is not, most simply because the weight of the guilty verdict is so heavy. Obviously such trials will cost more money, if only because the jury must spend so much time secluded during the longer deliberations. Additionally, a defendant in a capital case is granted two attorneys instead of the customary one, so more money there. If a guilty verdict is reached, a [I]second[/I] trial is had to determine if the death sentence will be given. This additional session is necessary for determining if there are more mitigating or aggravating circumstances involved in the murder, and which weigh more. Again, more time, more money. (Roman, et al 13)[/QUOTE]
It keeps on coming, folks.

[QUOTE]The appellate stage is interesting to me because cases where death is [I]not[/I] sought have the potential to incur more costs than cases in which it is. Non-death verdicts are routed through an additional appellate circuit (in Maryland), while death verdicts are taken straight to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Still with the "time/money" bit, but now the coin is reversed. Also, the appeal to the State is automatic in death sentence cases, so the step here is unavoidable, whereas non-death cases may cost more, but they do not always have to be appealed.[/QUOTE]
And generally they aren't nearly as costly. So yes, the potential for greater cost exists, but is usually absent in practice.

[QUOTE]This step may cost more because the State Appellate has the right to expand the jurisdiction of their case if they feel that doing so may (ironically) prevent further appeals. Beyond that, appeals to US District courts or the Supreme Court are only taken if "...claims ... are federal or constitutional in nature." (Roman, et al 14)

In other words, the costs are on average greater to seek the death sentence simply because the measures in place in our (or Maryland's, here) legal system exist because we recognise the sheer magnitude of taking a life at all. It could be a lot simpler?i.e., you kill a guy, you die, end of story, sucks to be you?but instead the system takes greater care in these situations to ensure that justice is truly done.[/QUOTE]
Whew.

[QUOTE]One can say "if it costs more, why not do away with it entirely", but I feel that that ignores the tremendous seriousness the topic is given by the legal system. I have said previously that the Law required death for murder; the system here is the human attempt to balance the Law's callous impartiality and our sense of mercy and understanding.[/QUOTE]
No, the appellate process exists to make sure the Law is exercised on the right individual, not out of mercy. It's a process based in rationality and for good reason - it's effectively the only check against sentencing a totally innocent man to the electric chair.

[QUOTE]No, not bloodthirsty. (It only feels that way because there is, unfortunately, blood involved.) Just impartial. Unfeeling. Emotionless. There's a reason the statue of Justice has a blindfold on.[/QUOTE]
Who passed the legislation for a death penalty? Surely not an impartial, blinded two dimensional character that supposedly represents "the law" and "justice." No, it was passed by people who see the only way to make moral amends with a murder is to keep the blood flowing. And it's actively supported by conservatives who believe the same thing.

Don't confuse a philosophical notion of "impartial justice" with the actual agents. You might be surprised to learn those executing the law aren't as impartial.

[QUOTE]And there's a reason we don't. We have the ability (and the charge, really) to temper that impartiality. Just because the Law demands it, we are not necessarily forced to mete it out. That's partially why these cases take so freaking long. :p[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? Impartiality under law is one of our most important philosophical principles. To "temper that impartiality" is another way of saying "make it less unprejudiced."

[QUOTE](Irony, thy name is . . . thy username.)[/QUOTE]
Retribution is not solely execution. This is a mistake people make. Lifelong imprisonment is also a form of punishment.

(but you're funny, I'll give you that :p )

[QUOTE]Generally speaking, however, murderers are not executed to make the victimised party feel any better.[/QUOTE]
I disagree - I think most people who support the death penalty do so because it satisfied some visceral, primal urge to retaliate an eye for an eye. And of course, you as a Christian would understand [i]that[/i] reference...

[QUOTE]The Law exists to maintain order and justice, not to make people feel better about being wronged.[/QUOTE]
Again I think you're failing to acknowledge the fact that the law is created and executed by [i]people[/i]. So perhaps on its face, the law exists to "maintain order and justice," but what does that even mean when those who created those laws were not dispassionate agents?

[QUOTE]And to my mind, if someone dear to you is killed and the only thing you can think of is that the person who killed them must die, then that person's death will not appease you. Such a mindset is incredibly destructive. And you [I]certainly[/I] have no place at the court proceedings if you feel that way.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately that's the way most people feel. Most people seeking the death penalty do so for some sort of satisfaction or "closure." People who have been wronged are not and cannot be dispassionate or entirely rational. They've suffered a massive loss, and they want to make the offender "pay for it."

[QUOTE]An appeal cap would essentially say "we're willing to accommodate you so far in your quest to prove yourself, but after that we're not going to listen to you any longer". Appeals are one thing, for they allow for examination of details that might have been swept under the rug in an attempt to hasten the death verdict (which is unfairly biased). But endless appeals are a waste of time.[/QUOTE]
I guess this is where we simply have different worldviews and neither one of us will be swayed. But I believe if you truly understand the enormity of taking a human life and the lack of any margin of error, you would not support an appeal cap. Appeals are the only check against executing an innocent person, and the possibility looms large that there was a mistake made. Perhaps evidence doesn't surface until much later. Perhaps there was a poor defense provided for the alleged killer.

[QUOTE]However, I have to question the reason for your statement there. Didn't you just say that execution doesn't make the victimised party feel any better? And yet you're using here a victimised party who needs definite closure via execution.[/QUOTE]
That's the thing. People [i]think[/i] they're going to find closure when the person in question is executed, so they doggedly seek that measure. That's because they're emotional and impassioned. The entire process is an emotional roller coaster. And once the guy makes it to the chair, they find no peace or closure.

[QUOTE]The "hope the offender will be executed" and the "unnecessary . . . when the defendant is almost certainly going to live" seem to have you contradicting your own views. Will execution make them feel better or will it not?[/QUOTE]
The victimized party contradicts themselves, and no one else. They are irrational, angry, bitter, and hurt. They think execution will bring closure, but it never does.[/font]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Retribution][font=Arial]Unfortunately that's the way most people feel. Most people seeking the death penalty do so for some sort of satisfaction or "closure." People who have been wronged are not and cannot be dispassionate or entirely rational. They've suffered a massive loss, and they want to make the offender "pay for it."[/font][/quote]Your reasoning is flawed. You've made the faulty assumption that once wronged, people somehow lose any from of rationality when that's far from the truth. It's not about making anyone pay, it's about making sure no one else has to suffer the same thing. [QUOTE=Retribution][font=Arial']The victimized party contradicts themselves, and no one else. They are irrational, angry, bitter, and hurt. They think execution will bring closure, but it never does.[/font][/quote]It is true that some people falsely believe this, and it is also why the law is there to make sure things are not done out of emotions caused by the event. But again, your giving all victims of this crime the same sweeping generalized reputation of being mindless fools after revenge.

I know what it's like to lose a loved one because of someone else's [I]bad decision[/I] so I really find it hard to believe that everyone is as bloodthirsty or irrational as you are implying here. The only true closure is in knowing that the offender can't do it to someone else. It's not about making them pay, it's about protecting the rest of society from further crimes.

And before we get into the [I]life without parole[/I] side of this...that also brings up that I only support the Death Penalty for the most horrible of crimes or in the case of serial killers. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Tahoma"]I'm kind of lost on one thing here. I always understood that it was the prosecution that decided if they would seek the Death Penalty and only if certain conditions were met. Not the family or friends of the victims. So why do we talk as if it's to benefit them? They don't even have a choice in the matter if what I've read is correct.

The Death Penalty isn't about getting revenge for anyone. It's about a responsible society dealing with crime in the manner that best suits the nature of the crime. I find it rather odd that so much fuss is made over the number of people who have been executed and yet the number of people who have died from murder each year is just shoved under the carpet.

Our system, as Allamorph already explained, is set up to help protect the innocent by allowing appeals and so forth and since so few people are actually sentenced to death, I really don't see a problem with applying this to more heinous crimes.

Seriously, I understand that since 1976 over 1,000 people have been executed. And yet according to this (which only has data up to 2005) [URL="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm#intgender"][U]Report[/U][/URL] just under 600,000 people have been murdered. o_O Seriously... wtf? Excuse me if I'm not to concerned if the Death Penalty is used against those who don't care that they killed someone. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='SunfallE']Your reasoning is flawed. You've made the faulty assumption that once wronged, people somehow lose any from of rationality when that's far from the truth.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]The entire reason we have a legal system is so that it can act as an impartial third party arbiter in disputes. The philosophy behind this is the notion that people do not act dispassionately or rationally when they are the ones wronged -- if you and I are in disagreement, you might think I deserve punishment X when in reality I deserve a less harsh punishment. But because you have such immediate proximity to the event (i.e. it happened to you), you're not able to displace yourself from it and make a fair and balanced decision. The courts do that for us, so that there's no question of if the judgement handed down is from an uninvolved, dispassionate party.

You'll probably make the point that if the court system gives a verdict, then it must be fair (i.e. since the court sentences someone to death, they were dispassionate and balanced in their ruling). This argument would have great merit were it not for the fact America has a disproportionately high level of persons executed annually. This means that, aside from being in the league of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al, we're simply more predisposed to condemn someone to death. Our courts and our people favor death to other punishment. It's just insane.

[QUOTE]It's not about making anyone pay, it's about making sure no one else has to suffer the same thing. It is true that some people falsely believe this, and it is also why the law is there to make sure things are not done out of emotions caused by the event.[/QUOTE]
You can send the person to jail for life without parole. This is probably the safest of all options, because if later down the line new evidence surfaces that exonerates the prisoner, they can be free and have a second shot at life. The invention of DNA techniques is a prime example of evidence showing up later.

If you just execute them, there's no second shot. There's no possibility of giving back that person their life if they were really innocent. You've just killed someone.

[QUOTE]But again, your giving all victims of this crime the same sweeping generalized reputation of being mindless fools after revenge.[/QUOTE]
Looking at the numbers, that's what I'm seeing. I'm seeing a nation that executes as many people as fundamentalist countries in the Middle East. Forgive me for assuming people here are a little less than sensible when they've been heavily wronged.

As a side note, Aaryanna - the plaintiff does not have to seek the death penalty, they can opt for life without parole. The prosecutor takes into consideration the wishes of the wronged party.[/font]