The Death Penalty - Inspired by Scott Peterson thread..

[C.Ann]

Is the death penalty an appropriate sentence when someone is convicted on ONLY circumstantial evidence (he said, she said, this looks suspicious) - or should there be CONCRETE evidence, such as indisputable DNA, eyewitnesses, etc.?

I say that the death sentence should only be imposed where there is concrete evidence..

***And please note - I am NOT talking about whether or not a "conviction" should take place - I am asking about the PENALTY phase AFTER conviction..***

 

[Nancy]

Only if 100 % positive...eyewitnesses...dna.... the whole shebang.









and you just know this will set off the whole debate about the death penalty thing.

 

[KarenC]

No. It is not a deterrent--people who commit capital crimes don't expect to get caught. It costs more for the state to administer than life in prison. All the death penalty does is satisfy our need for revenge, but in my mind it lessens the moral authority of the state when it comes to the value of life.

In Illinois we have had a crisis when it comes to the death penalty. Too many people on death row were found to be innocent after DNA evidence was evaluated. The former governor ended up commuting the sentences of everyone on death row.

Our church had a program where the prosecutor who tried John Wayne Gacy (mass murderer who hid his victims in his crawl space) and Scott Turow (best selling author who was on the governor's death penalty task force) talked. Kunkle, the prosecutor thought criminals like Gacy deserved to die and that his victims' parents deserved revenge. Turow, who used to favor the death penalty, thought it was too difficult to administer fairly and thought the only answer to that was to avoid it.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by KarenC
No. It is not a deterrent--people who commit capital crimes don't expect to get caught. It costs more for the state to administer than life in prison. All the death penalty does is satisfy our need for revenge, but in my mind it lessens the moral authority of the state when it comes to the value of life.

And I found the rest of your post interesting.

 

[katerkat]

IF I were to be in favor of the death penalty, I wouldwant concrete, DNA-type evidence. I'm not really in favor because I don't think it's enough of a deterrent....but for many of the people, nothing would be a deterrent anyway... I just don't want those type of people out of jail, ever.

 

[Rutt and Tuke]

I agree with katerkat and KarenC

 

[cynsaun]

Once the trial is complete, I am sure the jury will have more concrete evidence if they do find him guilty. There is a lot that the public doesn't know that will come out during trial.

If he is guilty, I would rather see him put in jail forever with HUGE blow-up pictures of his beautiful wife in life, what she looked like when her body was found, and that of his innocent little son that never had a chance! He would have to look at that day in and day out, to me that would be a bigger punishment!

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Nancy


and you just know this will set off the whole debate about the death penalty thing.

---------------------

Is that a "bad" thing? Afterall, we were instructed to post our debates here on the CB after the DB was shut down - as long as we follow the guidelines..

Hopefully these debates can be conducted in a civil manner so as not to be locked or deleted..

 

[Son of the Morning]

I'm absolutely opposed to it in any case. It serves no useful purpose save for the appeasement of revenge... and while that is something all humans are inclined to pursue, I believe that calmer heads must prevail in this situation.

 

[ripleysmom]

I think that if they have conclusive evidence they should fry his (or anyone else's) butt.

Me bloodthirsty? You betcha!!

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by ripleysmom
I think that if they have conclusive evidence they should fry his (or anyone else's) butt.

Me bloodthirsty? You betcha!!

Whaaa???

I'm agreeing with RM???

Yep, in cases like this I do.

 

[poohandwendy]

Is the death penalty an appropriate sentence when someone is convicted on ONLY circumstantial evidence (he said, she said, this looks suspicious) - or should there be CONCRETE evidence, such as indisputable DNA, eyewitnesses, etc.?

Actually physical evidence (like DNA) is circumstantial evidence.

Found this, thought it may clear up some common misconceptions about circumstantial vs. direct evidence:

"TYPES OF EVIDENCE

Evidence falls basically into two categories:

Direct evidence is something you actually see taking place. For instance, you catch a person breaking into a grocery store.

Indirect evidence is evidence that is not direct, the vehicle of the accused was seen in the area of the crime at the time of the offence. Also called circumstantial evidence. "

and:
"In law, circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. It differs from evidence provided by a witness who directly saw or heard something of an alleged offence; instead it is the circumstances that surround facts that can be used to infer guilt or innocence through reasoning. An example of circumstantial evidence is the behaviour of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone were charged with theft of money, and were then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be regarded as circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circmstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence."

also:
"CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.


If cases were only tried on direct evidence, very few murderers would be punished for their crimes because there is rarely a 'witness' to the crime.

My opinion is YES, the death penalty can and should be applied when it can be proven to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed a capital crime.

 

[Pop Daddy]

I think people should get the death penalty even if your only kind of, sorta sure he did it.

 

[Van Helsing]

N O - death penalty LIFE in prison !!!!!!

 

[IMGONNABE40!]

I am pro-life, therefore anti death penalty.

I've been away for the weekend, what do you mean that DB has been shut down?

 

[SandraM]

Can't agree with the death penalty. There are many killers who I strongly feel don't deserve to be alive, but society did not give these people their lives and I don't think society has the right to take their lives away.
The point that swings it for me is that when, as can happen, the wrong person is executed, that cannot be undone.

 

[Van Helsing]

Well said Sandra

 

[AirForceRocks]

ITA with RM - fry 'em. Or poke 'em with a needle or hang 'em with a rope or shoot 'em with a rifle - whatever the state uses for the death penalty.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
ITA with RM - fry 'em. Or poke 'em with a needle or hang 'em with a rope or shoot 'em with a rifle - whatever the state uses for the death penalty.

-----------------------

Totally OT, but it's GREAT to see you back again! We may not have always agreed on things on the DB, but I ALWAYS thoroughly enjoyed your well thought out posts and I learned a LOT from you!!

 

[Van Helsing]

fry 'em. Or poke 'em with a needle or hang 'em with a rope or shoot 'em with a rifle - whatever the state uses for the death penalty.

Doesn't surprise me ( does the same thing go for Human rights abusers Afr ? )