Should the Death Penalty be abolished

[Cotton]

We have a similar opinion of the way things should be, but we do not agree on the value of the current system.

We do agree on the value of the current system, unless you're saying that lawyers are the bane of the system, which we still agree on.

 

[jeebs]

Murder rates are from the FBI's "Crime in the United States" and are per 100,000 population.
Right below the graph.

When I was 15 I lost a thousand dollars investing in a company because I believed their graphs. Everything made sense according to the numbers, I never realized someone could just make up nbers and claim they are true and supported by an outside source.

Not really relevant, just thought I would share.

 

[Kbrown]

Isn't it a contradiction to be so suspicious of the state's power in general and police action in particular, then to support executions carried out by the state based on police investigations?

Earnest question. No trolling. And I don't (entirely) oppose the death penalty.

 

[jeebs]

Isn't it a contradiction to be so suspicious of the state's power in general and police action in particular, then to support executions carried out by the state based on police investigations?

Earnest question. No trolling. And I don't (entirely) oppose the death penalty.

Well, I guess I will think about this before responding.

 

[Kbrown]

Anyway, I tend to think death should be reserved for public, "political" murders. Mass shooters, bombers, assassins, killers who send manifestos to newspapers, etc. People who seek to disrupt public order on the largest scale. And the executions should be public.

I don't see much point in executing drug dealers who kill other drug dealers and the like. I totally understand victims' families anger, but I don't think the state should base its laws on what might feel best to emotionally anguished people.

 

[Cotton]

Anyway, I tend to think death should be reserved for public, "political" murders. Mass shooters, bombers, assassins, killers who send manifestos to newspapers, etc. People who seek to disrupt public order on the largest scale. And the executions should be public.

I don't see much point in executing drug dealers who kill other drug dealers and the like. I totally understand victims' families anger, but I don't think the state should base its laws on what might feel best to emotionally anguished people.

I would agree with all of this.

 

[Clay_Allison]

The death penalty isn't just about revenge, it's about ridding society of a problem, permanently. 100% of the murderers executed are rehabilitated. They don't pose a threat to other inmates, prison staff or the general public any more.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Isn't it a contradiction to be so suspicious of the state's power in general and police action in particular, then to support executions carried out by the state based on police investigations?

Earnest question. No trolling. And I don't (entirely) oppose the death penalty.

I question the use of deadly force without due process if it's not necessary. Imperfect as it is, a conviction by a jury plus appeal is due process.

 

[jeebs]

The death penalty isn't just about revenge, it's about ridding society of a problem, permanently. 100% of the murderers executed are rehabilitated. They don't pose a threat to other inmates, prison staff or the general public any more.

I don't think that is what rehabilitated means

 

[Clay_Allison]

I don't think that is what rehabilitated means

I think it's as rehabilitated as some people get.

 

[L.T. Fan]

So we are seeking revenge. That's what I thought. It's wrong, and just because it is done legally doesn't make it any less wrong.

It's wrong according to your opinion. A lot of folks have differing views.

 

[JBond]

Put them in jail, and it costs more for a death penalty sentence then it does to imprison someone for life in some states. Your position doesn't make sense if your using cost as a critical component unless all things are equal everywhere.


You're all over the place with your arguments. Thanks for supporting my thread though.

A .45 round costs less than $0.50. One shot to the back of the head usually does the trick. No reason to waste a bunch of money on murderers.

 

[UncleMilti]

With todays technology, I would bet the chance of executing someone truly innocent is measured in decimal places.

The abundance of surveillance cameras, the huge leaps in DNA, and the abundance of forensic science makes executing the wrong person remote at best.

Either way, the 20 years of appeals, and the joke of being able to file nonsensical lawyer drabble in order to keep the appeals courts backlogged for years should be abolished immediately.

There should be a pre-appeal process that weeds out the truly legitimate appeal cases and the ones that are filed just to clog up the system.

 

[jeebs]

Isn't it a contradiction to be so suspicious of the state's power in general and police action in particular, then to support executions carried out by the state based on police investigations?

Earnest question. No trolling. And I don't (entirely) oppose the death penalty.

Government power and justice are separate topics.

The death penalty is the only just and logical punishment for some crimes. I do not get the continued thought about these people or the desire to preserve their life. When I said kill them and move on I meant it.

Now, why would I trust government to do this? I don't really, but they are still the only viable option to carry it out. But i do not trust the police or the judicial system, which is why I consistently argued for stricter criteria on death penalty crimes, even while we expedite the process.

 

[Jiggyfly]

With todays technology, I would bet the chance of executing someone truly innocent is measured in decimal places.

The abundance of surveillance cameras, the huge leaps in DNA, and the abundance of forensic science makes executing the wrong person remote at best.

Either way, the 20 years of appeals, and the joke of being able to file nonsensical lawyer drabble in order to keep the appeals courts backlogged for years should be abolished immediately.

There should be a pre-appeal process that weeds out the truly legitimate appeal cases and the ones that are filed just to clog up the system.

So you don't mind that innocent getting killed because its negligible statistically?

There are people being freed on trumped up cases all the time and those are the ones lucky enough to have lawyers take up their cases.

 

[Cotton]

So you don't mind that innocent getting killed because its negligible statistically?

There are people being freed on trumped up cases all the time and those are the ones lucky enough to have lawyers take up their cases.

So, you're saying it's worth millions of dollars a year out of your and my pockets to save a tiny percentage of executed people that MAY be innocent?

I'm not.

 

[Jiggyfly]

So, you're saying it's worth millions of dollars a year out of your and my pockets to save a tiny percentage of executed people that MAY be innocent?

I'm not.

Did I in that post at any point talk about cost?

That's a whole other issue and its interesting that people are so cavalier about human life when they think it will never affect them.

I am not totally against the death penalty its a system that needs fixing, but I am not so callous to put money above killing an innocent person especially considering how rigged the criminal justice system can be.

 

[Clay_Allison]

So you don't mind that innocent getting killed because its negligible statistically?

There are people being freed on trumped up cases all the time and those are the ones lucky enough to have lawyers take up their cases.

People die accidentally for all kinds of reasons. Once the amount of people being convicted spuriously is reduced to statistically negligible I'd say that remote possibility is made up for by the advantages. I'd be fine with requiring DNA evidence, then fast tracking cases with good DNA evidence attached. That would keep the project innocence people from getting in the way.

 

[UncleMilti]

So you don't mind that innocent getting killed because its negligible statistically?

There are people being freed on trumped up cases all the time and those are the ones lucky enough to have lawyers take up their cases.

Most of these people you are talking about- if not all of them- are being freed based on the advances in DNA science...which goes back to my point....with the advances in science the risk of executing someone innocent is tiny. People on death row from the 70's and 80's...yeah maybe they should get a few more cracks at an appeal since DNA wasn't around and there weren't 3 hidden security cameras per person tracking everyones moves.

The entire system needs overhauled- but there is NO reason that these post DNA implemented murderers caught on camera...caught with DNA evidence, or caught with multiple eyewitnesses to the crime should be allowed to play the system for 20 years.

Its bullshit on any and all levels.

 

[Cotton]

Did I in that post at any point talk about cost?

That's a whole other issue and its interesting that people are so cavalier about human life when they think it will never affect them.

I am not totally against the death penalty its a system that needs fixing, but I am not so callous to put money above killing an innocent person especially considering how rigged the criminal justice system can be.

I'm also for reforming the current system. I had rather fast-track them, and not allow them to suck the public's teet for 20 years while their lawyers keep it tied up in court after they have already had their first couple of appeals. The appeals should be fast-tracked, too. Give them their due appeals (2 at most) and then carry on with it.