The Death Penalty

Capital punishment, the legal ending of a human life by the state.

It's some what controversial. Opinions are equally strong among both supporters and protesters of the death penalty.

American lawyer Edward Konch said 'It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life'. Others disagreed Catholic Cardinal Mc Carrick, writes "...the death penalty diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing."

So where do you stand?

edited 25th Feb '11 2:20:25 PM by joeyjojo

I think that there are some crimes, once committed, warrant death. But it is not something to be tossed about lightly. And as you stated, it is a very controversial subject.

I don't really have an opinion one way or another. But I think people are forgetting how dreadful life in prison is.

Yep. Save it for only the most heinous of criminals, people who, well, I would not even consider to be human anymore.

I think for a large chunk of people who commit extremely heinous crimes rehabilitation is a waste of time and resources that could be put to better use preventing future cases, and just offing them would be the best option.

However, there are way, way too many wrongful convictions that result in innocent people put on death row, and the appeals process to make sure we don't execute an innocent ends up being more expensive than just putting capital offenders in prison for life even when we know they're guilty.

So basically, for it on principle, against it in practice.

edited 25th Feb '11 2:51:55 PM by Pykrete

^ Yes. I agree with yoru first two points.

I still think we need it - but if done, it must be done properly.

Curses, another one of those ought vs. is things.

edited 25th Feb '11 2:38:06 PM by pvtnum11

I'm with Pykrete here, I'm with it in principal but not so much in modern practice.

If there was some way to be absolutely positive that a repeat murderer (for example) was indeed completely guilty, I would have no qualms with the death penalty.

Oppose it utterly. We don't need to reduce ourselves to the level of demonic thugs by committing murder ourselves. Two wrongs do not make a right, and the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder. No two ways about that. Life in prison can be pretty damn unpleasant, and there are ways to make it more so, so as brutal punishments go that can be pretty horrible anyway. Rehabilitation should always be the preferred option, though.

Here's a thought- we should end the death penalty, so no more sick fucks try to make getting an abortion a capital crime.

For it, but only in specific cases such as serial killers and mass murderers.

I'm for it in principle, but against our current system. The death penalty isn't about morality, it is about practicality. And practically speaking, I'd rather my tax dollars went to a useful purpose instead of towards feeding and housing society's failures.

And before anyone goes off about "state sponsored murder"...the government sponsors hundreds of murders a day. It's called war, and without it Americans wouldn't be living here.

Just because a thing is wrong doesn't mean it isn't necessary, but neither is necessity a license to forget that it is wrong.

Oh, and I think anyone who condemns someone to death ought to watch the execution, if not pull the metaphorical trigger. Pass the sentence, swing the sword.

CDA: Yes, rehabilitation is the preferred option. We need to do a better job of rehabilitating criminals than we do now, as well. That would keep repeat offenders from being just that - we had a discussion about this in a thread about Prison Privatization.

But I respectfully disagree on your point that the death penalty lowers us to their level - it does not. A murder of an innocent by a guilty party is not the same thing as the punishment of the guilty by society by murder.

For those that are not rehabilitatable (debatable on how to prove that and is that even a word?) and guilty of the worst of the worst of crimes, I think the death penalty is an option.

"And practically speaking, I'd rather my tax dollars went to a useful purpose instead of towards feeding and housing society's failures."

Actually, I've heard it's more expensive. And I'd be more worried about the dangers of serial killer, than the cost of feeding a "failure".

edited 25th Feb '11 3:00:29 PM by LoveHappiness

I agree, I don't see how it puts us at their level.

They are not innocent people. They killed innocent people.

edited 25th Feb '11 3:01:08 PM by Thorn14

@Love Happiness: ...Which is why I don't support the death penalty system as it is right now, just the idea that its probably better to execute someone given a good enough reason, if incarceration for life is the only other option.

It's more expensive to feed, house, clothe, and provide medical care for a life sentence than it is to pay for a proper execution.

edited 25th Feb '11 3:01:29 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

I think a lot of the cost is due to the fact that they are still housed in the prison system while waiting for the actual sentence to be carried out. With the system of appeals and all that, you could spend decades in prison before actually going to the chair or whatever method is used - and until that happens, you still have to be fed, housed, given medical attention and all that stuff.

Bunch of ninjas all up in this thread, too.

edited 25th Feb '11 3:03:08 PM by pvtnum11

Is it really fair to say "society's losers"?

America's prison system is HORRID.

We put so many people in for so many minor crimes, and it ruins their life too.

We should focus on rehabilitation and getting them back into society, not push them away.

Want to know how to make someone a violent criminal? Send a normal person who has made a few minor bad mistakes into prison for 5 or so years.

They will come out bitter, angry, and violent. Also, since they are former convicts, they will not be able to have any feasible career.

Guess what their only option is? More crime.

edited 25th Feb '11 3:03:26 PM by Thorn14

Do you think I'm stupid? OK I am , but that's not what I was talking about.

"Actually the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, and this is well documented. The high costs are for the legal process and the upfront costs (pre trial and trial level) are the largest part. Here is part of a report that spells some of this out- it is from the Kansas Dept of Corrections:

“The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).” (Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections)

Other states report the same thing. (Links below) It is hard to understand why the legal costs are so great. Here are a few of the contributing factors: • more pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial • more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered • more experts will be hired • twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution • jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered • two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment • the trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials

Sources:

Final Report of the Death Penalty Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Defense, Washington State Bar Association, December 2006, http://www.wsba.org/lawyers/groups/committeeonpublicdefense.htm

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/northcarolina.pdf links to "The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina" Duke University, May 1993

The Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research's Report, "Tennessee's Death Penalty: Costs and Consequences." http://www.tn.gov/comptroller/orea/reports/deathpenalty.pdf

and, from California, the most recent report at http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/dp/official/FINAL%20REPORT%20DEATH%20PENALTY.pdf"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090222151723AAYXvaL

edited 25th Feb '11 3:07:26 PM by LoveHappiness

Right now, it is more expensive to execute a criminal than it is to keep them in prison for life. But that's only because there are mandatory appeals and hearings that have to be gone through before the execution can even be considered — it's not the execution that's more expensive — it's all the lawyers' billable hours spend in the appeal process. Defense lawyers don't come cheap — not even if they're being paid by the state.

@Thorn: I agree with you that America's prison system sucks, and we put far too many people into it for spurious reasons. However, there are people that belong there, and there are people who belong in the ground for what they've done.

It isn't pleasant, but it is very real.

EDIT: Also, Madrugada in for the win. Perhaps the answer is to execute a few lawyers.

edited 25th Feb '11 3:06:33 PM by drunkscriblerian

Thorn: Agree.

Rehabilitation here is negligable. They're forgotten about and tossed into a culture that usually does very little good and a whole bunch of bad. Any surprise that they come out even worse?

EDIT:

I think part of the higher court and legal costs may have something to do with the gravity of the crime being committed, too. You smoked a bowl? Chances are you won't spend tens of thousands on your defense, just as the State isn't likely to spend that kind of cash on a fairly minor felony.

The greater the crime, the more likely the trial and legal stuff will take longer and thus cost more, and at a certain threshold, you'll cross over into the death penalty as a punishment option. The additional appeals from a death penalty case merely adds to it.

Or something. I think I need some caffiene now.

edited 25th Feb '11 3:10:14 PM by pvtnum11

I'm against it in all but the most drastic of circumstances - i.e. it is impossible to prevent the criminal from raping or murdering again without killing them.

I just don't think it's ethical for humans to think that they have the right to decide whether somebody else lives or dies.

I agree 110%

The problem is, we seem to forget who is who.

The way I see it there are 3 prisoners 1) People who made honest mistakes and need rehabilitation 2) People who have commited crimes, can still be helped hopefully, but have to serve their punishment. 3) Inhuman monsters who deserve no less than a bullet to the head.

edited 25th Feb '11 3:07:31 PM by Thorn14

@Thorn: figuring out which is which is the biggest challenge, mainly because of the penalty for mistakes. Even without the death penalty, sticking an innocent inside a concrete box for a few decades over something they didn't do is a high price.

@Loni:

I just don't think it's ethical for humans to think that they have the right to decide whether somebody else lives or dies.

You're right, it isn't. But sometimes events compel us to do it, and sometimes the other options are worse (letting a career rapist out vs. sticking him in a gas chamber). Again I say; we should remember the evil while bowing to the necessity.