The Death Penalty - Inspired by Scott Peterson thread..

[Nancy]

Originally posted by C.Ann
---------------------

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..

Nope...not a bad thing as long as everyone can all be civil about it. Too many times debates here turn into more then they should be.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Van Helsing
Doesn't surprise me ( does the same thing go for Human rights abusers Afr ? )

Try to stay on-topic jj...but as for human rights abusers, if they murder someone, sure, they should get the death penalty.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Nancy
Nope...not a bad thing as long as everyone can all be civil about it. Too many times debates here turn into more then they should be.

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

Agreed! I was just worried that you thought maybe debates shouldn't be here at all - after we were clearly instructed to post them here..

And I also agree 100% percent about some debates turning into more than they should be - even the ones started here by the CB regulars..

Debates can be VERY educational - as long as people remain civil -(I personally learned SOOO much on the DB) - and I'm hoping that's how things will go here now that the DB is gone..

Thanks so much for getting back to me and clarifying your statement..

Have a great day!
C.Ann

 

[Van Helsing]

Thanks Afr just wondering - sometimes you have different sets of rules you work from. At least we know where you stand

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Van Helsing
Thanks Afr just wondering - sometimes you have different sets of rules you work from. At least we know where you stand

Nope, I actually have one set of rules, but when you don't agree with the rules I use, you try to twist them all around to something they aren't.

Your problem, not mine.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I agree with the DP ONLY when there is concrete evidence. I also would reserve this for the sickest of crimes, such as people who beat , rape and kill children.

If they can prove that Scott Peterson killed Laci & Conner with concrete evidence, and I think they will, I hope he dies for it. Whoever did that to them is an evil, cruel and heartless person who will never change.

 

[edie w]

I am opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances.

It doesn't work as a deterrent, vengeance clouds judgment and we know that people have been murdered by the State because of lack of political will to overturn unsafe convictions. And I don't think we have the right to take life, except in self defence or in defence of our loved ones and country.

Oh and VH - I can't believe I'm saying this but give AFR a break.

We may disagree on practically everything else, but she has spoken out against human rights abuses on the "everyone in Abu Ghraib is a terrorist so it's OK to abuse them" threads.

So, to those pro- death penalty people out there - why do you support it? Why is it the right thing to do? How does it work? How does it not demean us as humans? How is it not playing God?

I'm not trying to start a fight - I'm genuinely interested. All the pro-death penalty people I know are unable to answer these questions, but I suspect some of you out there have well reasoned arguments.

Right that's my lunch break over (only a bit of lettuce in the keyboard so back to work...)

 

[Truth]

It appears to be an enlightened society. They have advances in all the major fields interest. They say they it's wrong to kill people and make all sorts of laws about it but if someone violates certain of these laws and kills another person, what do some of the masses want ?
It's not a debate it's a joke.

We absolutely do not want people to kill people.
What should we do with people who kill people ?
Kill them.

Irony left to those enlightened enough to see the waste of time in posting to this thread.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by edie w

So, to those pro- death penalty people out there - why do you support it? Why is it the right thing to do? How does it work? How does it not demean us as humans? How is it not playing God?

I support it in extreme cases (primarily people who kill children) with concrete evidence because I truly feel once you have killed a child or other helpless person, in a brutal and cruel manner, that you are something LESS than human. No human being I know could behead and chop up or beat to death an infant.

I feel when you choose to commit a crime, you have chosen to give up your rights. I think it is the right thing to do because often it brings closure to the family of the victim WHO DOES HAVE MORE RIGHTS than the CONVICTED KILLER. It also gets a convicted child killer (or other lunatic) off the streets forvever.

It does not defer people. No. But it does bring closure to some people and IMO, the rights of the victim far outweigh those of the person who CHOSE to commit murder. It means there is NO chance that this person will ever be out on the streets killing someone else's baby.

I do not think it demeans us as humans because IMO, once someone can be proved guilty of the sort of atrocities I would support the death penalty for, the killer is no longer a human being. They are a covicted murderer, with no sense of guilt, caring, heart or soul. It would demean us if we were doing this to people who accidentally ran someone over who darted out in front of their car. It would not demean us to do this to someone who beat, raped and then beheaded a 6 year old girl. And we do not beat , rape and behead them in return. We give them their last meal and rites and every chance to appeal. Then we put them out of this world with a humane measure, the same sort of thing we do to our old dogs and cats when we no longer want them to suffer. That is a hell of a lot more than they gave that little girl. Maybe we have a different opinion of what it means to demean , but this is mine.

I don't really believe in God. Therefore, it is not really my place to address this question.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by edie w
I am opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances.

It doesn't work as a deterrent, vengeance clouds judgment and we know that people have been murdered by the State because of lack of political will to overturn unsafe convictions. And I don't think we have the right to take life, except in self defence or in defence of our loved ones and country.

Oh and VH - I can't believe I'm saying this but give AFR a break.

We may disagree on practically everything else, but she has spoken out against human rights abuses on the "everyone in Abu Ghraib is a terrorist so it's OK to abuse them" threads.

So, to those pro- death penalty people out there - why do you support it? Why is it the right thing to do? How does it work? How does it not demean us as humans? How is it not playing God?

I'm not trying to start a fight - I'm genuinely interested. All the pro-death penalty people I know are unable to answer these questions, but I suspect some of you out there have well reasoned arguments.

Right that's my lunch break over (only a bit of lettuce in the keyboard so back to work...)

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

Okay - I'm going to take a stab at answering some of the points you brought up...

While the death sentence may not be a "deterrent" to OTHER criminals, it is certainly a deterrent to the criminal who has been put to death.. No way they can re-offend..

I agree 100% that vengeance can cloud ones thinking and that there have been (and will be) unsafe convictions.. (I have heard that Texas is notorious for not backing down - no matter WHAT..) That is why I personally believe there has to be CONCRETE evidence in the conviction - such as the man walking into McDonald's with an automatic and gunning down numerous patrons - while leaving other patrons who are actual eye witnesses to "who" did the killing..

I don't put an awful lot of stock into the "playing God" arguement as the murderer has clearly chosen to "play God" when taking the life of someone else.. I guess I fall back on "an eye for an eye" in that respect..

Another interesting point is that murderers often commit ADDITIONAL murders while incarcerated.. One particular incident comes to mind right off the top of my head.. A female prison guard in one of the facilities here in NY was murdered by an inmate who had been convicted of several murders.. If that inmate had been put to death, she would not have been murdered herself..

Lastly, unless you want a maximum security jail on every street corner in America, there has to be a death penalty to eliminate the most violent offenders..

 

[Viking]

A society applying the death penalty puts itself on the same level as a murderer.
Revenge is an understandable, but outdated and irrational concept.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Truth
Irony left to those enlightened enough to see the waste of time in posting to this thread.

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

With all due respect, if you felt that this particular subject wasn't "debate" material - and it's a "waste of time" to post to this thread, why did YOU take the time to do so?? Isn't that kind of like talking out of both sides of ones mouth?

I believe the polite thing to do is to simply pass by the threads that aren't to your liking or of interest to you.. I do it all the time..

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by edie w

It doesn't work as a deterrent, vengeance clouds judgment and we know that people have been murdered by the State because of lack of political will to overturn unsafe convictions. And I don't think we have the right to take life, except in self defense or in defense of our loved ones and country.

How do we really know it's not a deterrent?

And conversely (not to justify the execution of innocents), we've let murders go free because of the same failures in the system.

So, to those pro- death penalty people out there - why do you support it? Why is it the right thing to do? How does it work? How does it not demean us as humans? How is it not playing God?

I'm going to leave God out of it because not everyone that's pro death penalty believes.

I'm for the death penalty not primarily as a deterrent, but as the ultimate punishment for the worst offenders. If it deters someone else from committing acts that have the death penalty we'd probably never know.

Can we really call it vengeance because it's not the victims family that gets to pull the lever, it's the State (or Fed).

 

[dennis99ss]

welcome to the new debate board?

 

[poohandwendy]

I don't see the death penalty as revenge. I have never wanted to see the death penalty be handed down to quench a thirst for vengence. (For example, I don't think the victims family should be the ones to decide, that would be vengence) I think people who commit the most heinous crimes should pay the ultimate price to keep society in check. IMO, society has to enforce laws with a stern hand or we have chaos.

I don't want revenge, I want society to be protected from those proven to be vicious murderers who think nothing of killing and torturing on a whim. I don't agree with the death penalty for all murder cases, but I think it definitely has it's place in our system of punishment.

I see no diference between the DP and killing to protect the country or ourselves. Just my opinion. I respect the fact that others disagree.

 

[MHopkins2]

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!!

Love you, RM! ITA.

And regarding the cost objection, we could fix that by shortening the RIDICULOUS amount of time it takes to move someone from sentencing to execution. There is no reason whatsoever for people to sit on death row for 10+ years.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
Love you, RM! ITA.

And regarding the cost objection, we could fix that by shortening the RIDICULOUS amount of time it takes to move someone from sentencing to execution. There is no reason whatsoever for people to sit on death row for 10+ years.

In Illinois alone, if there weren't a lengthy process to move someone from sentencing to exection, 18 people would have been executed for crimes they did not commit. Here's a link to the Northwestern University Law School's site on wrongful convictions.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/

It was actually a bunch of NU Jouralism students who conducted the research that led to the first exonerations.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I know it's fiction, but there was an episode of LA Law, DBF and I were watching the other day (we love that show) and we were both outraged at the jury giving the DP to a man we both thought was completely innocent based on reasonable doubt.

Like I said, I'm for the DP in severe cases where there is concrete (not circumstantial) evidence.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by emmagata
How do we really know it's not a deterrent?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167

The link above sites research that shows that there is no reduction in the murder rate in states that actively apply capital punishment. Some studies actually show an increase in the murder rate following executions.

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by KarenC
In Illinois alone, if there weren't a lengthy process to move someone from sentencing to exection, 18 people would have been executed for crimes they did not commit. Here's a link to the Northwestern University Law School's site on wrongful convictions.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/

It was actually a bunch of NU Jouralism students who conducted the research that led to the first exonerations.

I'm sure now that they've "cleared the backlog," they'll be able to ferret out new wrongful convictions in a timely fashion.

[Sorry. I'm feeling particularly ornery today.]