Capital Punishment

MeezDiscreet · #1 06-06-2001, 04:03 PM

what are your views? for or against?

i'm a bit torn on the issue. on the one hand, i think it is wrong because it is an extreme act of judgement, playing God if you will. i think it is wrong to take another person's life. but, on the other hand, it does serve as a self-defense mechanism for the country by protecting citizens from homicidal maniiacs and is easier on cost than life imprisonment. let me know what ya'll think!

------------------
I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it.

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind

[This message has been edited by MeezDiscreet (edited June 06, 2001).]

newbie · #2 06-06-2001, 04:15 PM

For it.

An eye for an eye...I think it is a good punishment, especially for those who have killed hundreds mercilessly. (Timothy McVeigh for example.)

But then the system does have its faults, b/c there are cases where innocents were killed.

And, it doesn't cost us (the taxpayers) so much money, whereas life imprisonment does.

[This message has been edited by newbie (edited June 06, 2001).]

dzrose93 · #3 06-06-2001, 04:21 PM

I'm definitely for it. I don't think they give it out often enough, actually. In many other countries, there's less crime because would-be criminals are terrified of the punishment if they're caught. I don't think criminals in the U.S. fear authority enough. Maybe if we used the death penalty more often and applied it more quickly once the sentence was handed down, the crime rate would be curbed somewhat. I do understand that innocent people are wrongly imprisoned at times, and that is why we have so many checks and balances. But I feel the process is still too lengthy.

newbie · #4 06-06-2001, 04:48 PM

DZRose: Totally agree with you!!

Lil_G · #5 06-06-2001, 05:02 PM

Capital Punishment has been proven time and again that it is NOT a detterent to crime.

"A country's civility can be measured by how it treats it's prisoners."

KillarneyRose · #6 06-06-2001, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lil_G:
Capital Punishment has been proven time and again that it is NOT a detterent to crime.

"A country's civility can be measured by how it treats it's prisoners."

Perhaps capital punishment has been proven not to deter crime but I know for a fact that, once a murderer is executed, he/she will NEVER kill or hurt anyone again. I know that you (you meaning any capital punishment opponants) will rebut this statement by saying someone who is serving life w/o posibility of parole will no hurt or kill either, but that's not 100% foolproof.

I definitely feel that some people simply cannot be rehabilitated (which is the perceived reason jails exist)and that they can no longer be allowed to be a part of society in any way, shape or form.

BTW, Lil G, please don't feel that this is an attack on you or your beliefs! Just disagreeing is all

------------------
@~Tracy~@

By the light of the lamp, by the light of the lamp, by the bright shiny light, by the light of the lamp...if you are a DeeZee, you're the best that you can be, by the bright shiny light of the lamp!

SuperXO · #7 06-06-2001, 06:10 PM

I can't say it any better than dzrose, Killarney or newbie. Do you know how much money we spend on prisoners? I heard a stat once...bottom line was, they are getting a free ride...from our hard-working paychecks!! Maybe it's not all fun and games being in prison, but it's probably more fun than what they did to their victims!

Lil_G · #8 06-06-2001, 09:16 PM

Well, I have some idea of the cost incurred with policing american society. There's a figure that estimates 4% of the workforce is involved in the justice system. Now, comparing this to other societies (such as Canada or any european nation), it's a much less lower percentage. You can almost say that this expenditure is a social program that provides employment and generates the economy.

And it seems the public is becoming increasingly willing to turn over it's responsibilities of prisons and jails over to private corporations - e.g. wackenhut.

I must however disagree with the argument that the cost of maintaining an incarcerated individual for his or her lifetime is cheaper than giving this person the death penalty. Because of appeals and the backed-up legal system, the cost is about the same or even higher if some cases.

Yes there is a small underlying incarcerated population that can't be rehabilitated...one of the greatest criminological thinkers of all time said that a lifetime of misery is far greater punishment than giving the satisfaction of ending someone's life.

Just my two cents - not an attack on your beliefs

[This message has been edited by Lil_G (edited June 06, 2001).]

33girl · #9 06-06-2001, 09:52 PM

I have to say I disagree with capital punishment.

Lil G pointed out the cost of the appeal system vs. cost of lifelong imprisonment, which was one of my reasons also.

My main reason is, I hate that we put that responsibility of life onto an innocent person. (badly stated) I mean, how does the guy who does the lethal injection or the guy who throws the switch to the electric chair live with that? Even if you believe in what you are doing, over time, it's got to mess with your head. Witness the stories of all the men who did the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings either committing suicide or going crazy.

If life imprisonment really WAS life imprisonment, and we weren't letting murderers and rapists out so recreational drug users could be put in (sorry, tangent), it would teach a lesson. People in prison for murder should have to think about and talk about what they did every single day, till the day they die. In my opinion, many of the people who commit murders do it because they feel they have nothing left to lose. They would welcome death. I don't think we should let them off that easily.

I hope this makes sense cause I feel like I'm tripping over my tongue.

KSig RC · #10 06-07-2001, 12:55 AM

First some facts, then my opinion:

First - it's NOT cheaper to perform an execution. At all, ever, in any circumstance etc. Any of the current systems used (excepting Utah's archaic 'stoning' clause) are set up to pass supreme court verification for 'cruel, unusual, unfair' etc, and thus the inordinate appeals system. Plus, separate facilities for those on death row, etc - expenses add up (i didn't believe it, then i did a project on it . . . it's crazy)

Second, it's not an effective deterrent to crime. Numerous studies have been done - few criminals think about the reprocussions of their actions, and even fewer expect to be caught. Also, sure, if we kill a prisoner he won't kill again - but in most states, murder, rape, possibly even kidnapping carry life terms anyway w/out parole, so they probably won't kill either.

OK, well here's the shocker:

I'm very much FOR the death penalty - it makes sense overall, even if the 'normal' details don't necessarily add up. Since when is cost a big issue in the courts system? Judges are paid full pension until the day they die, then their families get paid for 5 to 10 more . . . ever see how much expert witnesses are paid? Also, to hell w/ deterring, b/c current methods don't work either. I support the death penalty, but not in its current form - it would require a complete overhaul, plus changes in the education of youth and rehabilitation of youth offenders, etc. But that's another story i guess . . .

newbie · #11 06-07-2001, 01:06 AM

OK, I don't understand then--what IS a deterrent then? Nick, I thought that retribution DID contribute to a crime decrease in California?

Obviously, our system is not working currently. Though there IS a decrease in crime, still, I don't think it is enough. I don't think it's fair that so many criminals that have killed many/raped, whatever, are allowed mostly to spend their life in prison...with access to many priviledges such as card games, TV, food, family visits, teleophone calls, etc.

Why the hell (pardon me) do they get these priviledges (even though they must earn theese priviledges first) when they have done something so unhuman, brutal?

I don't think the death penalty is used enough...if it was, maybe criminals would be less likely to commit crimes if they knew for sure that the gas chamber/electric chair would be waiting for them. Instead, the majority of criminals get access to exercise, TV, etc. when they truly don't deserve it. And also bail, parole, and the possibility (though rare) of escape from prison.

I'm not saying that ppl who stole cars, dealt drugs, etc. should get the death penalty--I mean those who killed should also be killed.

I understand that some criminals DO change, and after therapy/religion they become a changed person. But most don't...and they get out of prison, commit the same crimes, end up in prison yet AGAIN, and cost us even more money...

Sorry if I don't make any sense...I'm kinda tired. Also, I learned some facts from my Soc class about the high cost of keeping these criminals in the prisons--and it was shocking. Some crazy percentage is zapped from our taxes. But I don't have the numbers on me right now, and also, I'm not a Soc major...this is from a class that I just finished taking in HS.

[This message has been edited by newbie (edited June 07, 2001).]

newbie · #12 06-07-2001, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lil_G:
I must however disagree with the argument that the cost of maintaining an incarcerated individual for his or her lifetime is cheaper than giving this person the death penalty. Because of appeals and the backed-up legal system, the cost is about the same or even higher if some cases.

So, Nick, capital punishment IS cheaper then?

newbie · #13 06-07-2001, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KSig RC:
Any of the current systems used (excepting Utah's archaic 'stoning' clause)

Rob, Utah still stones people to death???!!! That's downright horrible!

LexiKD · #14 06-07-2001, 01:41 AM

I cannot say the Republician in me is 100% against it, but what if the jury was wrong?

Rudey · #15 06-07-2001, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by newbie:
OK, I don't understand then--what IS a deterrent then? Nick, I thought that retribution DID contribute to a crime decrease in California?

Obviously, our system is not working currently. Though there IS a decrease in crime, still, I don't think it is enough. I don't think it's fair that so many criminals that have killed many/raped, whatever, are allowed mostly to spend their life in prison...with access to many priviledges such as card games, TV, food, family visits, teleophone calls, etc.

Why the hell (pardon me) do they get these priviledges (even though they must earn theese priviledges first) when they have done something so unhuman, brutal?

I don't think the death penalty is used enough...if it was, maybe criminals would be less likely to commit crimes if they knew for sure that the gas chamber/electric chair would be waiting for them. Instead, the majority of criminals get access to exercise, TV, etc. when they truly don't deserve it. And also bail, parole, and the possibility (though rare) of escape from prison.

I'm not saying that ppl who stole cars, dealt drugs, etc. should get the death penalty--I mean those who killed should also be killed.

I understand that some criminals DO change, and after therapy/religion they become a changed person. But most don't...and they get out of prison, commit the same crimes, end up in prison yet AGAIN, and cost us even more money...

Sorry if I don't make any sense...I'm kinda tired. Also, I learned some facts from my Soc class about the high cost of keeping these criminals in the prisons--and it was shocking. Some crazy percentage is zapped from our taxes. But I don't have the numbers on me right now, and also, I'm not a Soc major...this is from a class that I just finished taking in HS.

[This message has been edited by newbie (edited June 07, 2001).]

You seem to think that people commit crimes by thinking about the consequences first. It NEVER happens regardless of what the consequences are. I walk in on my wife having sex with my brother and I might just shoot someone (mind you I am not married, have no brother, and can't even watch a deer get shot). You paint a picture much too rosey as well for jail - something someone could easily do because they heard it somewhere, not because they were there to see it. What you're talking about are the minimum security facilities and you have to understand that people imprisoned there commited white-collar crimes, not a brutal rape/murder. A high security penitentiary provides prisoners with a great deal of punishment including an incredibly high rate of brutal beatings and rapings at the hands of fellow inmates and prison gangs while guards turn a blind eye (search NY Times National section regarding the astonishing number of prison rape). And on top of that, prison has also changed the economic system; many prisoners do work at cheaper rates on top of providing restitution to their victims as well as providing cheap labor for the government.

And here's something to think about. By and large if you support capital punishment, you are condemning anyone who dies to death because of your support. (I believe all those nifty little trials after WWII determined that Hitler's supporters were just as guilty as he was even if they knew they'd be shot if they resisted his views.) So now we have established you are involved in sentencing someone to death. Now let's think about how many people have been given the death sentence undeservingly. In fact let's look at condemnation of the US by countries aross the world for executing those who commit crimes before reaching the age of adulthood and executing those deemed to be mentally handicapped. On top of that every year there are many prisoners released when somehow a new piece of evidence comes forth clearing them...what about those that weren't so lucky? There has to statistically be at least one so called "outlier". And statistically, certain groups and gender receive the death penalty much more than others. Well I seem to have digressed, but let's say someone innocent is executed tomorrow. By international law, you are guilty of murder and by your own views, murderers should be executed.

And you are definitely wrong about the costs of execution. They are much higher than keeping a prisoner locked up. To this day, the UN and most countries condemn us for using the death penalty. To this day other countries that do use the death penalty such as China condemn us for killing children. Sometimes when everyone in the world is telling you something, you may want to re-examine your policies.

And I don't feel you should take this to mean I am a liberal. On the contrary, I am from a very conventional Republican family and I do consistently vote on the Republican ballot. My personal view is that the death penalty should be abolished and prisons should become even more "uninviting". I do believe in corporal punishment though to some extent and feel that does get more results.

There are also many theories on crime and murder. One of the prevailing ones is centered on a natural "momentum". It's been shown in NYC that while crime numbers do come down, they level off at a point and can't be decreased. This means that other alternatives should be considered (ie, a better effort to reach out to someone and help them before they become even more criminal minded).