Capital Punishment

<b>What is your opinion on it</b>
<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>

...and serial killers, terrorists, serial rapists.

<b>
"Now drop your weapons or I'll kill him with this deadly jelly baby."
</b>

Can't bring back any of the victims. These days its extremly difficult to be convicted of such crimes on circumstantial evidence. DNA usually proves it, and rules out the doubt.

<b>
"Now drop your weapons or I'll kill him with this deadly jelly baby."
</b>

Profiting off an execution is sick, and so is criminals who are able to profit from their crimes. McVeigh got a book deal, had the wrighters whitness his execution. Where the money is going to go, i don't know. John Wayne Gacey was able to, from prison.

As Dennis Miller says, simple solution would be to remove the idea of protective custody and just put these assholes in general population.



<font color=red> To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism, to steal ideas from many is research.</font color=red>

Oh come on. How many people have been <i> murdered </i> by the state. How many are wasting taxpayers money on life imprisonment, who should have been executed.
I realise there are people who want to watch executions for kicks. I am not one of them. I find the whole business bloody and distressing for all concerned, but the fact remains: there are people out there who can't ever be allowed back into society. Why pay sixty years of money to keep them?

Too often, these people hide behind nicey nicey views like
"It makes us no better than them"

We are made better by removing the risk of further pain and suffering of more victims.

<b>
"Now drop your weapons or I'll kill him with this deadly jelly baby."
</b>

Actually, the "it's cheaper to kill them" argument doesn't really hold up. It's actually no cheaper to go through the process of putting someone to death than it is to put them in prison for life.

I think the death penalty is more about vengeance than justice. If you put someone to death, it kind of reinforces the notion that killing is an acceptable means of justice. "If the government can do it, then it's okay for me to do it," was basically McVeigh's thinking. As difficult as it is, I think the government and society need to stay out of the business of intentionally killing someone. Having lost a young son (due to negligence, not murder), I know how devastating the loss of a loved one can be. But I'm not sure that vengeance is the answer. Nothing will ever replace someone who dies or is killed. Some of the relatives of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing commented that McVeigh's death was "too easy." Would it be easier for him to have sat in a cell the rest of his life, thinking about what he had done? Maybe, maybe not. Difficult questions with no right or wrong answers. But I personally find killing distasteful and would rather err on the side of caution rather than kill an innocent person. And if someone is guilty, I'd rather them sit and think about what they had done for the rest of their life. Ultimately, they have to answer to themselves and their creator, if they believe in that kind of thing. Most people change as they get older. The 18 year-old who kills someone is not the same person as the 65 year-old man sitting in prison for the same crime. Anyway ... those are my thoughts, I don't expect to change anyone's mind. This is one of those highly polarizing issues, like evolution/creation and AMD/Intel.

<i>Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.</i>

Stop insulting people's opinions. Why don't you state your own.

<font color=red>We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. - Eisenhower</font color=red>

I don't look it as a vengance issue. I think it should be used a little more wiseley than it is though. It should be reserved for the most hidious crimes, in which there is no doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of the criminal. Basically reserved for people who no longer deserve a second chance at being a memeber of society, in a justice and parole system that we don't know if we'll be able to trust ten years down the road. It's not killing for vengance, it's killing to maintain the rights of any possible future victems should the criminal see the outside world again.

I don't think a month goes by that I don't hear about some guy who diddles a few kids, gets a slap on the wrist sentence, then gets out and goes after more kids. And the legal system says these guys have the right not to be shamed in their communities, and their names don't get released, nor do their addresses. I think every judge/jury that gives slap on the wrist sentences and gets a re-offender like that should be accountable, or maybe since the criminal has "served his debt to society" he can go live in judges, and DA's neighborhoods.

Gotta face it, it's not a justice system anymore, it's a legal system, in which people get off every day on technacalities, miss prints, and loop holes. That's not justice. People who are complete idiots can so something stupid causing harm to themselves and sue, and win. Everything as simple and basic as a cup of coffee has to carry a warning label to protect the ignorant from themselves. Idiots can sue for doing something stupid and win, criminals can injure themselves while trying to break into someone's house, then sue and win. That's not justice. That's a legal system with an incredible lack of common sense.

I say that if the crime is absolutely horrid, and the evidence is fool proof, let 'em hang, at least that way we know they're not comming back.

<font color=red> To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism, to steal ideas from many is research.</font color=red>

Aw man, am I gonna have to debate you again? Didn't you learn your lesson with Ray Bourque? Just kidding ... I'll just say this, though. I think the true answer is to address the problems of society to reduce crime. The death penalty doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent in an of itself.

<i>Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.</i>

I'm not looking at as a deterant, I think there's a place in time wherein the well being of the many needs to be placed above the well being of the few. To ensure the saftey of the many, there's some cases in which (and very few) someone just needs to take one for the team. If nothing else but to ensure that no one is ever hurt by that person again.



<font color=red> To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism, to steal ideas from many is research.</font color=red>

I agree, the death penalty should not be used as a deterant. It should be considered a penalty, not as a means to deter crime.

I hear aguments that the death penalty is not effective because it does not deter crime but neither does jail sentences the last time I checked. So should we not jail people?



<font color=red>AMD Lemmings, Intel Lemmings - They all taste like chicken....</font color=red>

There are quite a few people that are reformed from jail sentences, although most people in jail from petty crimes usually come out knoledgable in a far wider range of criminal activities.

But still, The death sentence should not be used as a deterant. If someone is serving a life sentence, s/he is being denied freedom, the luxuries of life and the burden of knowing theyll never be free.

If they are killed then thats all it is, they are being killed. They are not being punished. Also, seeing it as a deterrant doesn't work either. Because it doesn't deter other people.

Even if a jail sentence fails to act as a deterrant, it still works as sufficient punishment. A whole portion of their life is taken away from them.

Of coarse, there are crimes that for which life sentences do seem tame. For example the paedophiles sicken me to death. For crimes like McVeigh's where he believed in what he was doing. He was ready to die. As far as he sees, he was doing to those people, what the government finally did to him. So, how are they any better or more valid than him.

What also disgusts me is how a death sentence is turned into an exhibition. It is not degrading to the sentencee but only the attendees and the people such as the people (even prison officers) holding such exhibitions and selling merchandise.


<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>

That's an incredibly glib interpretation of what I was saying.

If I have a fuel leak in my car, should I replace the fuel line, or should I have the trunk of my car converted into a giant gas tank? The simple answer is, I should replace the fuel line. You shouldn't ever compensate for an error in one thing by 'fixing' something else and ignoring the error.

And, of course, I should properly diagnose that it is indeed the fuel line before I replace it. And if it is not, then I replace what other component is causing the leak.

I still believe that a court should be in place to determine a person's guilt or innocence. However, when a person is found guilty, punishment should be swift and equal to the damage caused by the crime. (And that other forms of punishment should be considered instead of just imprisonment, fines, or death.)

If in this process the innocent are unjustly accused, then the correction should be made in the process of <i>determining guilt</i>, not in the methods used for punishment.

If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of productivity? Ground first.

More like an eye for several eyes in the cases where serial or habitual offenders are concerned.

<b>
"Now drop your weapons or I'll kill him with this deadly jelly baby."
</b>

I don't think that would deter them anymore than the current death sentence.


<font color=red><i>Tomorrow I will live, the fool does say today itself's too late; the wise lived yesterday<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by HolyGrenade on 06/19/01 11:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

No... finally someone that matches your pov.


<font color=red><i>Tomorrow I will live, the fool does say, today itself's too late; the wise lived yesterday

I'm just saying by killing him, you're not actually punishing him. He is not being punished if he is dead. Its like getting rid of a problem with a quick fix instead of dealing with it.


<font color=red><i>Tomorrow I will live, the fool does say, today itself's too late; the wise lived yesterday

I'm sorry HolyGrenade, but I just can't swing to argue for your point of view. A life is something that can never be paid for. There is no punishment that will equal such a crime. There is no act of vengance that will ever make up for the hurt caused to the family and friends of a victim.

Since nothing will ever make it right, you might as well just kill the bugger now and save the world countless resources spent to keep the murderer alive. Why should we pay to clothe, house, and feed them? To make them suffer? Should the taxpayers then be made to suffer as well by paying for all of this just for vengance because killing them is too easy on them?

Do the world a favor and just kill them off. Rehabilitation isn't worth the effort when the world is overcrowded already. For every criminal killed, there are hundreds of babys born. Why put the resources into keeping this person alive so that they can suffer when the same resources can be put into keeping someone who obeys the laws of society alive or bettering the lives of law-obeying citizens?

Yes, innocents may get sentenced to death because of it. Yes the punishment is letting them off easy. (Although the killings should, in my opinion, be equal to the pain that they have caused other people, not these painless lethal injections or gas chambers.) However, the good that can come from using the resources that would have kept this murderer alive for something more worthwhile, and the number of deaths prevented from actually scaring soon-to-be criminals straight will far outweigh anything and everything gained from your idea of 'justice'.

If every punk in a gang, if every student who ever considered taking a gun to school, if every mugger, and if every drunk driver ever had to worry about being put to death in three years or less just for even 'casually' killing someone (self defense and pure accidents excluded), premeditated or not, you'd better believe people would start to think about what they intend to do before they go and do it.

If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of productivity? Ground first.

I find that to be a bizarre point of view. At least if they're alive they can continue to fight for their freedom. If I were wrongly convicted, I'd like the opportunity to fight for my freedom, even if it is from a jail cell. To say, "oh well, even if they are innocent we're still doing them a favor" just doesn't make sense to me.

I find your vision scary. Painful executions for criminals, swift justice, killing innocent people to "make it easier on them." Sounds like the middle ages or ancient Rome and not at all the kind of society I want to be in. They had pretty swift "justice" in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia too. And they didn't worry too much about guilt or innocence either. Extreme examples to be sure, but they were the kind of brutal systems I think we need to be careful to avoid becoming.

<i>Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.</i>

I think comparing our justice system and executions to those of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cambodia or any other dictatorship form of gov't is ludicrous. Those people were murdered for political reasons.

We're talking about a thorough justice system that determines guilt or innocence through lengthy procedures.

All I'm saying though all of this is that I support the Death Penalty, but I think it would be more effective if it were harsher. We put people to sleep like the humane society does, and that is way too gentle.

There was a mother who's daughter was killed in the OK bombing. She said something that really was moving. She witnessed the execution and said it was disgusting in many ways and she would never want to see it again, but she then went on to say that at least now her biggest fear was over: She didn't ever want to hear him try to justify what he did. She just didn't want to hear it anymore. I think that alone is a good enough reason for the death penalty.

<font color=red>We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. - Eisenhower</font color=red>

I say we let them all live in prison for their whole lives, and remove protection givin them under the cruel and unususal punishment clause. Instead of giving them the easy way out at almost twice the cost it would cost to leave them in prison for life (due to appelate court process which is far more expensive since it's a circut court of appeals- so in the end those who die after a few years cost more than those in prison for life without parole) let's lock them up where they get no recognition, human contact, tv, books, education, where they recieve minimalist food, a weekly 15 minuite walk in the sun-preferably on cloudy days-and basically rot for the rest of their miserable lives. THAT'S JUSTICE!

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.

1 in 7 convicted rapist who recieved DNA testing proved to be innocent of the crime they were convicted of.
Timothy McVeigh was seeking revenge for crimes commited against victims of Ruby Ridge and Wacko. He got his "life for life" revenge, and so did the government.
With so many innocent people being convicted, I think all these pople who support the death penalty should be rounded up, and 1 in 7 of them picked out and sumarily executed while the rest watch. That might help put an end to the debate. Anyone who thinks that murder is justified for any reason, even by the state, is an arsehole who is doing harm to the progress of society and needs to be removed from society.


Cast not thine pearls before the swine

From the Dept. of Justice., the statistic was reported on an MSNBC report on inacuracies in eye-witness testimony. Turns out most victims barely notice the faces of their assialants, pick them from a lineup under extreme pressure, and then remember the face from the lineup, not the crime.
If anything the D.O.J. would skew the results in favor of the prosecution, not the defence. That is to saythat 1 in 7 found evidence adequate to overturn the conviction, so their is a possibility that even more people are found guilty erroneously, but are unable to find enough evedence to overturn a conviction. Getting a conviction overturned is almost impossible without overwhelming evidence.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

In "tomorrows world" a tv programme in the uk, they did a live tv test. they acted out a crime scene and asked tv viewers to vote in certain things via the phone like the colour of the jacket, trousers. was he wearing a cap. stuff like that. The accuracy was extremely low. yet, that is one of the strongest things in a conviction.


<font color=red><i>Tomorrow I will live, the fool does say
today itself's too late; the wise lived yesterday

that might work if not for the fact that nearly all people have some bias and with such a small pool of people to choose from for the "jury" of judges, bribery would be easy and common. No I think your idea won't work. I still like mine better. (see above)

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.