Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

FortKnox's Journal: Death Penalty, lets have at it... 85

Journal by FortKnox
Well, I've seen dicussions, but no one really wants to brawl it out.
Yer poll:
A.) Kill'm all and let God sort'm out
B.) Free love for all, and no death
C.) Really don't care one way or the other.

Me, personally? I'm against the death penalty. The penile system (hehehe) is all about rehabilitation. I believe in forgiveness, and I believe killing is a sin regardless of the reason.
Now, don't get me wrong, if I had a gun and someone was going to kill me or anyone in my family, I'd take him out. I'd be sorry for what I did and all that, but if its me or him, I'm taking out him. I'd almost say "If someone killed a family member and he was caught by police, I'd ask the judge for life in prison before the death penalty", but never being in such a tragic situation, I'll shy away from that statement.
Anywho, I'll close with a cheese line that Gandalf said in the movie, but is true, none-the-less:
Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.

Anywho, have at it. Tell me how you agree, or tell me I'm an idiot. I proclaim the flamewar to begin!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Death Penalty, lets have at it...

Comments Filter:
  • but I don't shed any tears when real creeps get the chair
    • Killing is an option only in self defense, when your life is threatened. Even then, you'll have to answer for it.

      DP is the product of a violent, death society. The same society that produces volumes of violent and mortal crimes.

      You cannot exclude one or two fruits, and say "I approve of this tree." The tree is rotten in it roots - and you find it in its fruits and flowers. Eliminating the DP is desireable - not killing is desirable. The culture and the society are themselves wounded, and the symptoms ca
  • *points downward*
    • And also...

      I'd ask the judge for life in prison before the death penalty", but never being in such a tragic situation, I'll shy away from that statement.

      Most likely, you would want them to die. This is why we have the justice system- to remove as much emotional kneejerking as possible. Sure, it still happens, but a judge and jury is going to be much more impartial than the person who just lost a loved one and would trade all their scruples to have them back.

      When people say "you won't understand until it h
    • "A society should be slightly more civilized than its sociopaths"

      Nice! Might I suggest inserting the words "at least", though?
  • I believe two contrary things, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I say they are contrary, but not totally incompatible.

    First, if you've put a jury of 12 people into a room, and tell them that they have the option of choosing punishments, between life in prison and death, and they go through the very personal process of choosing the death penalty - and then the Judge also agrees with the Jury's recommendation... follow through.

    Second, if you take it off the table - and you don't put all these people t

    • Second, if you take it off the table - and you don't put all these people through this process - then that's better. Life in Prison with no possibility of parole is cheaper on my tax dollars - more Euro-friendly (and who says that most of Europe has everything wrong?) - and frankly, easier on a Jury.

      I fail to see where its less expensive to feed, clothe, and maintain a facility for a person for 50 years, instead of giving them a $120 injection. Most people, when faced with life in prison with no chance of
      • I fail to see where its less expensive to feed, clothe, and maintain a facility for a person for 50 years, instead of giving them a $120 injection.

        Because that's not the choice our system gives us. It's really feed, clothe, and maintain a facility for a person for 50 years, vs feed, clothe, maintain a facility for a person for 30 years, plus give them several million dollars worth of time in our justice system, plus the $120 injection. It's the cost of appeals that will get you- and that adds up to MOR
        • Regardless of whether or not they are given the death penalty, the option of appeals is open to all. If they streamlined the process significantly, the cost would be minimal. There is no way that the appeals process (4 state courts + 3 federal courts) should take more than ten years.
          • But it does, and that's reality.

            http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1 0 8&scid=7 [deathpenaltyinfo.org]

            I'm also careful to include the human perspective (putting 12 jurors through this morality play). It's quite obnoxious. Anyway - I'm against it for a very finite number of reasons, which leads me to my openness to seeing through the punishments already prescribed.

            • The cost issue leads me to a "no doubt" scenario. It would have to be corroborated by a dozen witnesses, a lack of substantive conflicting testimony, and, preferably surveillance footage that has been certified to be unaltered. Should there be a memory of a shadow of a doubt, the death penalty should not be an available option. Life without parole, and away they go, and we save a few million dollars in appeals and the collective conscience is at ease.
              • Interesting - though - it seems that the practical extrapolation of this would mean it's not really an option anyway.

                By the standard above, even Timothy McVeigh (Murrow Building, Oklahoma City) would have been spared. Again, maybe he should still be rotting in a federal prison*, but a jury went though the trouble of recommending he receive the death penalty - and, well, it's too late now.

                *Children were hurt and killed. The general population would mete out punishment on a very brutal, and regular b

            • I'm aware of the current system, but the reality is that you're pulling that money from two different pots. There are not enough cells to permantly house all of those who are dangers to society. Whether or not a person was truly a danger is a tough decision, however if it can be substansively considered that more than one person's life could potentially be saved if another person was killed, in the great karmic cycle, I'd put that down as a win.

              The twelve jurors agreed to become part of the morality play
              • You know, Jesus, after what the Romans did to you, I'd have expected a different outlook.

                Sorry - (see sig) ... Anyway, There is pro and con for the death penalty, but the reality of the way the Death penalty is handled means it's inefficient and very expensive. I don't see that changing anytime soon, but I do see the possibility of the Death Penalty going away (it was outlawed until 1976) in more states. I just don't that should mean automatic reprieve for those already sentanced.

                On the other hand,

          • Regardless of whether or not they are given the death penalty, the option of appeals is open to all. If they streamlined the process significantly, the cost would be minimal. There is no way that the appeals process (4 state courts + 3 federal courts) should take more than ten years.

            And yet in capital cases, where appeals are filed on several different alternate theories, we routinely see a 20-30 year appeals process. That's where the additional cost currently is. Because the threat of a "final solution
        • If the death penalty were eliminated in the USA, it seems that the effort that is currently put into death penalty appeals would simply shift to life with no parole cases. It isn't clear to me that eliminating the death penalty would eliminate the expense of costly appeals.
          • If the death penalty were eliminated in the USA, it seems that the effort that is currently put into death penalty appeals would simply shift to life with no parole cases. It isn't clear to me that eliminating the death penalty would eliminate the expense of costly appeals.

            Life with no parole cases have an alternate method of getting to the same conclusion- because there is the gift of *time* to be more sure of the truth before an appeal is filed. I suppose you could get the same response from the death
  • but you have to support it to be elected to statewide or national office, so it's still around. Bush killed Karla Faye Tucker (sp?). Clinton killed some dude who was mentally ill. Schwarzenegger killed Tookie. (Well, let them die.) Not because they deserved to die, but because they knew they would lose elections if they didn't.
  • The penile system is all about rehabilitation

    It's also a deterrant, and, it should provide the victim (or their family) as well as society as a whole with some sense of justice. And finally, it keeps bad guys away from the street for a while. Rehab is just one part of it.

    I also don't fully buy the forgiveness aspect. In order to truly repent, you must understand the pain you've caused and sincerely regret it. If you do that, you will also want to repair the damages, and, you will accept the appropriate

    • That's part of the reason why I believe that criminally insane should receive a suspended sentence to begin after they are declared sane enough to serve it

      So you're in favour of LONGER detention for someone who is mentally ill than for someone who isn't? Imagine there are 2 defendants, both of whome receive a 10-year sentence, but one is mentally ill, and it takes 5 years to declare him cured ... he end up serving 15 years under your scheme.

      And this ignores the whole "we don't hold people responsible

      • Of course I have a choice, just like RDewald has made a choice to never use lethal force. I'm just curious what he'll do if he's ever in a position to either use force, or see an innocent 3rd party die.
        My mind is made up as to my course of action. I've even made it clear to the wife that if the situation comes up with someone breaking in to our house, I will fight as long as I can rather than submit and place my life in their hands.

        Mental care in this context is not a right, it's a privelege extended beca

        • If someone breaks into your house, just give them the crap they came for. It can be replaced. Your health, and the safety of your wife and kids, is NOT worth any macho "I'm taking a stand" BS. Let them take it. Heck, I'd even offer to bag it for them if it will get them off the premises quicker, because the quicker they're gone, the less likely there's going to be an "incident".

          He was crazy when he did it

          Yes, people stop taking their meds. They take their meds, feel better, then figure "okay, I'm bette

          • If you want to stand with your hands in your pockets while someone's being robbed, raped, assaulted or killed that's up to you and your conscience. Me? I have to act. It's who I am.

            It's also not about keeping my stuff, the TV, the car or the money. Saying that I'd kill an intruder over it is completely false. I'm just not willing to take the chance that they will decide to rape my wife, or kill all witnesses. Or simply burn the house down for shits and giggles. I prefer to trust my own judgement over that o
            • If you want to stand with your hands in your pockets while someone's being robbed, raped, assaulted or killed that's up to you and your conscience. Me? I have to act. It's who I am.

              Then you better learn some self-control, because you're a danger to everyone around you, including those you want to protect. Because you obviously have never been in such a situation. Its NOT like what you see on TV.

              As for your example, there is no evidence whatsoever that if Albert Owens had been armed that the outcome wou

              • Should have used preview (stil getting used to swapping mouse buttons earlier today):

                If you want to stand with your hands in your pockets while someone's being robbed, raped, assaulted or killed that's up to you and your conscience. Me? I have to act. It's who I am.

                Then you better learn some self-control, because you're a danger to everyone around you, including those you want to protect. Because you obviously have never been in such a situation. Its NOT like what you see on TV.

                As for your example, ther

                • Wow you just don't get it.

                  Just because I have guns and am prepared to use them doesn't mean I do whenever there's trouble. Don't make assumptions about what I have or have not done. Give me a little bit of credit and trust me to use my judgement when it comes to my family.

                  Please tell me, why do home invaders in Sweden use hand guns when the populace at large are not allowed to own them? Why do the invaders on occasion execute the victims? Why weren't they caught earlier? I'm sure you have done years of re

                  • Just because I have guns and am prepared to use them doesn't mean I do whenever there's trouble. Don't make assumptions about what I have or have not done. Give me a little bit of credit and trust me to use my judgement when it comes to my family.

                    Your previous statements belie your judgement. You've already gone on record as a "must take action" type of person. So, no, I don't give you credit when you speak as someone who obviously has never been in that situation.

                    This was your response to my saying I'

                    • Geez, so I need to qualify my statement with every possible condition that has to be met before I would engage someone with force? I don't think so. Use some common sense and again, give me a little credit. You're arguing a case that just isn't there and we're not getting anywhere.
                    • Its just that I've heard so many people go on about what they'd do, and they say they'd rely on weapons instead of using their head. My bet - a lot of them would end up at room temperature.

                      Unlike them, I earned the right to be critical of rash statements about hypothetical situations.

                    • So instead of reading what I actually say, you make assumptions about what my meaning is based on past experiences? That doesn't really seem fair.

                    • So instead of reading what I actually say,

                      No, I read what you wrote here [slashdot.org]:

                      My mind is made up as to my course of action. I've even made it clear to the wife that if the situation comes up with someone breaking in to our house, I will fight as long as I can rather than submit and place my life in their hands.

                      ... and you ended that post with this ...

                      I don't give a shit about moral high grounds. I will defend my family regardless of what morals, religion, judge or jury say. I won't hesitate a second i

                    • My Swedish heritage breeds violence? I dunno, I can't say we've been known for being very aggressive for the past oooh, 1000 years or so.

                      There are times when you have no choice - its kill or be killed. However, it is your responsibility to ascertain that this is truly the case, rather than shoot first, ask questions later. You cannot automatically assume that because someone came to rob you, they're also going to rape your wife and then kill everyone.

                      And you appear to assume that I will shoot first, ask q

                    • My best bet is to strike first and land a hard kick and then follow up quickly and try to keep some distance.

                      You blew it. Why not just do as I've done, tell the guy (okay, in one case it was 2 guys, both bigger, but the situation is still the same) that the cops have been called, and if they're smart they should "get out of dodge" while they still can. It works. No violence. No need for "planning how you're going to handle it". Someone pushing someone else around in the parking lot is a bully and a cowa

                    • Yeah I guess so, I completely blew it.

                    • Okay, I apologize - you didn't completely blow it - sorry. But your first instinct was to plan to return violence with violence, and that just escalates the whole situation. This is what I mean about the "gun culture" and the way it has got everyone so jumpy about all sorts of situations. Its like putting mice into a stressful situation, and watching them gnaw their limbs off.

                      Its not healthy. I couldn't live like that. I live in a city of several million, and someone getting shot is so rare, it makes the

                    • But your first instinct was to plan to return violence with violence, and that just escalates the whole situation.

                      No. No. No. No. I'm not sure what you read, but it sure as hell was not my JE. Read the very opening line of the paragraph you partially quoted. Actually, let me do it for you: "I really don't want to fight if I can avoid it." I had no intention of jumping him. However, I had a game plan ready should all other options fail. What you interpret it to say is very different from what it actually sa

                    • Okay, your points are valid. Its probably because I really hate handguns, and this whole death penalty thing is really polarizing. The death penalty doesn't work, but not for the reasons stated. Its actually kinder than keeping someone alive for life with no hope of ever being let free.

                      Keep them alive. Keep them as an example of a wasted life. Don't give them celebrity status and cult followings by executing them. Don't waste millions on appeals of the death penalty. Don't possibly make a mistake that is

                • Better off to ban handguns. The lame argument "if you ban handguns only criminals will have them" fails to meet even the most obvious criticism - that once a ban is instituted you can lock up someone BEFORE they kill someone else. But logic has never been the gun-nut lobby's strength.

                  Just like Prohibition got rid of alchoholic beverages, right?

                  Tom, if banning guns is the answer, why has the violent crime rate dropped dramatically in states that have Concealed Carry Laws? Texas in particular has seen dou

                  • The Concealed Carry laws in the States protect the innocent by making the criminal wonder if the victim is going to shoot them or not.

                    [funny mode on] wouldn't it be cheaper and safer to give everyone a face mask, and have them wondering "If I shoot/mug/whatever this person, are they going to bleed on me and kill me? [funny mode off]

                    Prohibitions only work if the people are behind it. The goal isn't to eliminate, but to control. For example, we can't eliminate rapes by prohibiting them, but we sure as hec

                    • For example, we can't eliminate rapes by prohibiting them, but we sure as heck can throw the rapist in jail.

                      Which is punishment for their actions. We can, and do, heavily punish people who commit gun crimes in Texas.

                      Now, which would you rather try defending yourself against - someone with a gun or a knife?

                      For pure hand to hand combat, obviously, a knife.

                      However, even my black belt in Tae Kwon Do cannot protect me from the knife wielding psycho who sneaks up behind me and slits my throat - or attacks

              • if you ban handguns only criminals will have them" fails to meet even the most obvvious criticism - that once a ban is instituted you can lock up someone BEFORE they kill someone else.

                That's a bullshit example, and you should know better.

                Guess what? LOTS of types of guns are banned here in the ole USA. Lots of guns give the cops excuses to lock someone up before they commit a violent crime with them. But there are two major problems with that:

                1) there are still lots of those guns out on the street. Whi

                • The facts are clear - the US has the highest homicide rate, and the easiest access to handguns.

                  That there are lots of guns out on the street is because there is no real handgun control. Guns are as easy to get as drugs. Unfortunately. And that's not going to change until ... well, its probably never going to change. You're in an arms race with yourself. And the more weapons, the less secure you all end up. Mutually Assured Destruction is a terrible neighbourhood policy. It might work between cuntries, bu

                  • Guns are as easy to get as drugs.

                    Baaad example, Tom. Yet another case of "flat prohibition does not work".

                    • It works for some things and not for others.

                      When people want drugs, they'll get them despite the law.

                      When people don't want guns, and the law is on their side, prohibitions work.

                      We had a crime wave in Montreal for a while - the Hells Angels were involved in a gang war with another group. This resulted in a lot of shootings - something we're not used to having up here. So, a task force was created, special prosecutorial teams appointed, a secure courthouse and special detention facilities built - in ot

                    • Wouldn't you like to live like that?

                      Your fallacious arguments don't do you any favors Tom. Conflating gun bans with all the other differences between Canada and the US is nonsense. Maybe *you* could use a good read of Efficient Society [amazon.com] to understand what I mean.

    • "Not admitting guilt isn't reason to execute someone,"

      We have a justice system that requires people to plead "innocent" or "guilty," and doesn't allow them, most of the time, a plea of, "guilty but responsible." A lot of the time, people are advised to plead innocent, because that's all it takes. We don't reward responsible behaviour, we tell them to plead guilty not if they did it, but if they got caught in a way that allows them no loopholes. This encourages criminals to be victims. This "happened" to the
      • I agree. I desperately disagree with the "throw away the key" crowd. I also find the pound-me-in-the-ass prison jokes to be absolutely disgusting.

        After you commit a crime, most all your rights are forfeit. It's up to you to prove that you deserve another chance. It's up to us to provide you with the opportunity.

        Little known fact, a cousin of my wife was convicted of murdering her aunt 12 years ago when he was 17. Everyone but the prosecutor, jury and judge seem to agree that he didn't do it and was innoce

      • "guilty" or "not guilty". And in some cases "no contest". "Innocent" isn't a plea you can enter. And I think it should be. And I think if you are declared "innocent", it has completely different implications from merely being declared "not guilty".

        I'll pass on the topical stuff, though.

    • In it's current form, it's not a deterrent. The typical criminal has a greater chance of being killed while committing a crime or (in the case of drug-exploiting gang members) being killed for territory in a given year than a death row inmate has of being executed. The death penalty is the criminal justice equivalent of a parent saying "I'm going to count to a hundred and then I'm really going to punish you."

  • Punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent is a duty of good government. Thus, whether the death penalty is moral or not is a function of how good your jail technology is. At present time in this world, we range in jail technology from the absolutely unescapable (cubes of welded steel with input and output ports of various types) to the completely ridiculous and obsolete (some third world jails are little better than a few iron bars set in a wall of mud bricks). When the crime is sufficiently viole
  • While Tookie deserved to die and one can hope it hurt Cory Maye [typepad.com] is getting railroaded and should NOT be killed. So kill'em when we're sure.
  • there's no way to make it fair.* there's no way to fix it if they're wrong. it doesn't save money. it doesn't change the past. it's also pretty racially and ethnically slanted.

    *example: in the state of ohio, out of 88 counties, only three have enough revenue to prosecute with death penalty.
  • However, I don't know how I'd feel if someone in my immediate family were killed by someone and they had conclusive evidence toward that end.

    I'm also not a god, so I don't really feel qualified to make that decision. I liked Oculus' take on it, actually, that taking a life can be taking something of value, wasting it.

  • Our society ought to be advanced enough to where the Death Penalty is no longer used. Where it is simply another relic of ancient punishments, like the rack and pilloray. Unfortunately, our society has not yet advanced to that point. Indeed I see a decline and even regression in our growth. For that reason the Death Penalty needs to remain, because we are still a society that is immature enough to need it, and because it will remain a rallying point for those who continue to push our culture forward.
  • Judge to jury: You took your sweet time. What's the verdict?
    Jury Foreman: We find the defendant not guilty!
    Judge to Foreman: Well, you go back and think some more, We hung him 2 hours ago!

    You can't fix that sort of mistake.

    If you're in favour of the death penaty, read it and weep [truthinjustice.org]. There is no excuse for this.

    "We all agree that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted," Mr. Marquis said. "Is it better for 100,000 guilty men to walk free rather than have

    • The problem is, even if you get rid of the death penalty, innocent people will still go to jail on crimes that WOULD have had the death penalty. Let's pretend that 20 years into their life sentence, evidence is presented that sets them free. Their life is STILL ruined, and those of their loved ones. It's little consolation to be alive and free when nobody will employee you, you have no job skills, no social network, no "honest" friends, no savings or money with which to start over, and who knows what sor
      • No question about it - but better to have half a lifetime as a free person than none at all.

        Yes - it is hard to rebuild your life. But people do it all the time, because they have no other choice (as witness the topic of my current series of JEs). Talk to someone who's been wrongfully convicted of murder, then set free, or read their stories. You'll find that some of them, while angry at "the system", have gained unique insights into themselves and those around them. Like a dandelion seed stuck in a cra

  • I believe killing is a sin regardless of the reason.

    And therein lies the difference between a Roman Catholic and a psychotic Christianist.
  • by js7a (579872)
    imposible to correct, two proven mistakes as per DNA, about 100 close calls per year in the past year as per DNA, mistakes in progress; not worth the risk.
  • Personal protection aside... Let them live in Prison for the rest of their lives.

    There is a commandment..Thou shall not kill. It's not directed towards good guys or bad guys. It means everyone.

    I'd like to think we are not barbarians. Apparently we still are.

    Sean D.
  • The death penalty is simply barbaric. A country that still uses it cannot claim to be civilized.

    It's funny - if you asked a pro-capital punishment person whether they could still be pro-capital punishment if they were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, usually, they pause and you can see in their eyes that they just imagined being in the execution chamber. It is usually followed by face-saving backpedaling.

    Probably the worst case I heard of in the United States was in around 1997 or so - somewhere in
  • Here's an interesting argument that you need to consider if you're an opponent of the death penalty:

    What deters a criminal already facing a life sentence from killing? Look at the latest round of three strikes laws where violent felons face life without parole if they're arrested a third time. Suppose one of these people is out after two offenses and is robbing a liquor store. If there's no death penalty then it's actually to their advantage to murder all the potential witnesses. (If they get caught and
    • But If there is a death penalty applied for any death that occurs during a crime, on the first offence that someone ends up dead (has a heart attack from the stress) it's going to be in the offenders best interest to kill everyone who may or may not have witnessed the event.

      Now you have me ranting.. :)
      My simple arguments against the death penalty:
      a) it's not applied fairly & is open to abuse.
      b) the existance of the penalty changes the nature of the legal system.
      c) It forces the prison system from a plac
      • a is mostly true in the case of where/when prosecutors seek this penalty. As for the people charged there have been studies in some states showing no ratial bias.

        b I really don't know what your point is with this. I would think/hope that a "Life Without Parole" sentence would be as carefully vetted as a death sentence. (Considering that Tookie's case took 24 years there certainly isn't a rush to the chamber.)

        c Rehabilitation is a tough thing but how does a small number of death penalty cases change the e
  • In most regards, I'm in favor of death for those who deserve it. The problem I see is that there's no 100% fool-proof way to determine absolute guilt or innocence.

    I would rather the guilty go unpunished than see the innocent suffer. Although I think the option for death should be provided, should the convicted wish to speed things along.

    At present, I would probably select death over life in prison, even if innocent. It's cheaper for the taxpayers. Prison is not populated by people I would think of as friend
  • There are many reasons to think capital punishment is a bad idea. But for me, one alone is sufficient to decide the issue.

    So long as our court system mistakenly convicts the innocent, the death penalty should not be allowed.

    Of course, this means an indefinite ban. As things stand, it is very clear that our court system occasionally convicts people of crimes they did not commit. Some of these mistaken convictions have led to executions. This has more consequences than one might think.

    It's not just that a per
  • Penal? [webster.com]

    Historically capital crimes used to be things running the gamut to including things that we consider misdemeanors now (petty theft) or failing to pay taxes. I'm trying to remember but around 1800 there were something like hundreds of crimes punishable by death on the British law books. Now there may be two (murder with intent and genocide, which might be considered murder one * n). This narrowing sometimes reminds me of the End of War conversation where the reasoning goes that we are entering an en
    • I'm trying to remember but around 1800 there were something like hundreds of crimes punishable by death on the British law books. Now there may be two (murder with intent and genocide, which might be considered murder one * n).

      There were over 200 crimes, including such gems as being in the company of gypsies for a month. Over time, those were gradually reduced to only the most serious crimes, until the death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1965 for the general case. Two exceptions remained, treason and

  • Here is a world map displaying the countries and their use of capital punishment. [wikipedia.org] Note that Europe doesn't practice it, in part because admission into the European Union requires it's abolition or a moratorium. We should be more civilized than those who kill.
  • by mekkab (133181)
    I do NOT believe I deserve the death penalty. Seriously. No foolin'.

    Keep Mekka B outta your crosshairs.

    That is all for now.
  • I seem to be in the minority here, but I'm mostly pro. I believe there are some people that can serve no useful purpose by continuing to live, and if that's the case, then by all means, end their lives (in a humane manner -- electrocution doesn't count IMHO). If someone has committed a suitably horrific crime, then how does society benefit by keeping them in jail for the rest of their lives? I can't see it, and indeed, I can see several downsides.

    Will there be mistakes made? Yes. The system is flawed. Is

  • by Sloppy (14984)
    I'm in favor, mainly because it appears to solve a problem and I haven't heard any strong arguments that show it having miuch of a relative downside. There are a few that look good at first glance, though:
    • Death can't be undone -- what if you find out the convicted person is actually innocent? I don't like this argument, though, because just about any sort of punishment can't be undone. (Can you undo imprisonment? At best maybe you can claim imposition of a fine can be undone, but even that is iffy.)

    • by Alioth (221270)
      But you CAN release someone from prison when their conviction is overturned. You CAN pay them compensation.
  • IF we could have certain knowledge that everyone killed in the name of punishment really was truly guilty of the heinous crimes they were convicted of, I would be all for the death penalty. The other caveat of course being that it be reserved for truly heinous crimes. Jeffrey Dahmer for one. BTK for another. Killing the guy who you found in your wife's bed, in a fit of passion, is not a heinous death penalty crime (though certainly one deserving serious consequences nonetheless).

    The problem I personally

  • If the condemned is later found to, beyond reasonable doubt, be not guilty of the crime, the prosecutor(s) (including the DA or AG as the case may be), judge(s), and jurors are all considered to be guilty of murder in the first degree (it was most definitely premeditated) and thus punished accordingly. That, more than anything else, will preserve the death penalty only for the cases where it is absolutely true that the accused is guilty.

  • I don't buy the free love for all bit, but I do think we need a better option than the death penalty since it reduces us (the society) to the level of killers. As others have pointed out, a false positive is irreversible - once dead a man who was innocent cannot be restored any more than the victims of a killer can be. Our courts are not infallible nor is the appeals process infallible. Innocent people do get convicted and sentenced. Is even one man being killed in error acceptable? Personally I don't
  • You ever look at the rate of drug use in Singapore?

    It is next to zero.

    You know why?

    THEY FRY DRUG DEALERS.

    You want to tell all the crack babies that drugs are a victimless crime? How about I take a scalpel t your nervous system and see if you feel the same way afterwards?

    Now of course you would also have to make FRAMING someone as a drug dealer also punishable by death.

    The entire scheme likely only wouldn't work due to how f*cked up and racist our society still is.

    Likely would get rid of drugs really fast t

Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.

Working...