For those who believe in the death penalty

[Moonbeam]

Here is a recent article about a forensic scandal in Mississippi. If any crime should be worthy of the death penalty, surely raping and murdering children would qualify. However, I think this shows how inadequate our legal system is for determining when capital punishment should be administered. http://www.slate.com/id/2184798/ Summary: Two men were convicted (one sentenced to death, one to life in prison) based on the testimony of a medical examiner who performs 1200-1800 autopsies per year by. No more than 250 are recommended. The doctor is not board-certified in forensic pathology. He claims to be have invented a method using yellow goggles and iridescent light to match bite-marks with people, which cannot be duplicated. He is extensively used by the prosecutors because he comes up with results that no one else can. The two men convicted were later released when a DNA match showed that another man committed both murders.

[thegnome54]

The death penalty is archaic and stupid to begin with. Are our prisons really too incompetent to keep people from harming society?

[Universal Mind]

Here is a recent article about a forensic scandal in Mississippi. If any crime should be worthy of the death penalty, surely raping and murdering children would qualify. However, I think this shows how inadequate our legal system is for determining when capital punishment should be administered. http://www.slate.com/id/2184798/ Summary: Two men were convicted (one sentenced to death, one to life in prison) based on the testimony of a medical examiner who performs 1200-1800 autopsies per year by. No more than 250 are recommended. The doctor is not board-certified in forensic pathology. He claims to be have invented a method using yellow goggles and iridescent light to match bite-marks with people, which cannot be duplicated. He is extensively used by the prosecutors because he comes up with results that no one else can. The two men convicted were later released when a DNA match showed that another man committed both murders. The same argument could be used about putting people in prison. It's more of an argument against incompetent forensics. The emergence of DNA oriented forensic science has done a lot to change the false conviction factor. Any opposition I have to the death penalty concerns the families of the convicts, not the convicts themselves. I have no sympathy for that scum. None. I switch my mind back and forth on the the death penalty all the time because I feel sorry for the families of the people who get executed. However, I feel a little bit sorrier for the families of the victims because they have no understandability factor to lean back on. They deserve as much closure as they can get, and that is exactly what the executions of the perpretrators gives them. It gives them maximum closure. The death penalty will never result in detectable deterrence until it is used consistently and swiftly. Executing somebody once in a blue moon twenty years after his crime will never work as a deterrent. We need to either have a capital punishment system all the way or or not have one at all.

[Mes Tarrant]

The death penalty simply sickens me because ... well, maybe mainly because I think killing a human being is sickeningly extreme. I don't think the people who kill prisoners (by death penalty) are any better than the prisoners who murdered people. It's the exact same thing.

[Universal Mind]

The death penalty simply sickens me because ... well, maybe mainly because I think killing a human being is sickeningly extreme. I don't think the people who kill prisoners (by death penalty) are any better than the prisoners who murdered people. It's the exact same thing. If somebody murdered your father for $5, would the state really be just as evil if they killed the scum that did it? I think the state's action would be worlds more understandable.

[Mes Tarrant]

If somebody murdered your father for $5, would the state really be just as evil if they killed the scum that did it? I think the state's action would be worlds more understandable. I'd be blinded by my grief and anger and all that, but I still think that the two acts are objectively exactly the same. Actually, upon further thought, I think I'd be way more satisfied knowing the guy was in prison for life...

[Bonsay]

If somebody murdered your father for $5, would the state really be just as evil if they killed the scum that did it? I think the state's action would be worlds more understandable. Wouldn't it be more understandable to let the family kill him? Give them a room and some privacy and maby a bat... that would be better and the ultimate closure for the family, wouldn't it? If prisons are made for punishment and satisfaction, why not take it all the way?

[Universal Mind]

Wouldn't it be more understandable to let the family kill him? Give them a room and some privacy and maby a bat... that would be better and the ultimate closure for the family, wouldn't it? If prisons are made for punishment and satisfaction, why not take it all the way? I think I might agree with that. If there is going to be a death penalty, let the family administer it. Good idea.

[Bonsay]

But that would be evil and inhumane. In my opinion murder and other stuff like that is natural but useless and if we want to act like we are highly evolved, it should stop. The "global consciousness" is not conscious enough to realise that and untill then, people will keep killing eacother. Once it, along with all other "evil" things, really stop, humanity wins at life. Ofcourse everything else connected such as wars, greed, capitalism (evil) and such as will stop aswell. So yes, why not be honest to ourselves and do things as they are meant to be done.

[Carôusoul]

I guess this comes down to the concept of revenge. I don't think revenge provides a release.. but I do tend to lean towards it in life.

[Taosaur]

We're at an odd place on this issue now--our conscience as a society is sufficiently developed that we make execution prohibitively laborious and expensive, but not enough that we just stop.

[Universal Mind]

But that would be evil and inhumane. In my opinion murder and other stuff like that is natural but useless and if we want to act like we are highly evolved, it should stop. The "global consciousness" is not conscious enough to realise that and untill then, people will keep killing eacother. Once it, along with all other "evil" things, really stop, humanity wins at life. Ofcourse everything else connected such as wars, greed, capitalism (evil) and such as will stop aswell. So yes, why not be honest to ourselves and do things as they are meant to be done. I could swear that goes against what you said in your last post. People will have to evolve into a new species before those things go away, except for war. Greed is as much a part of human nature as hunger. Nobody is above greed. Nobody. Your will to win this debate is a form of greed. Greed is what makes people tick. When people try to gain self-esteem and social power by standing against greed, they are being greedy. Humans are all about greed, and we always will be. Greed fuels capitalism, and capitalism is the only thing that makes countries truly prosper. A system that squashes the social and economic value of greed is evil. A noncapitalistic country has nothing fueling its economy other than an intimidating, oppressive dictator or set of absolute rulers. Capitalism is the only type of economic system that has ever really been successful. What would fuel the work ethic in a socialist or communist nation? Stalin, Minh, Kim Jong Il, and Castro. That's what. And even they were extremely weak compared to capitalism. We have fat homeless people and luxury ridden "poor" people because of capitalism, and Japan has grown to be one of the greatest countries in the world because of capitalism over the past few decades. With prosperity comes civilization, and the most civilized nations do not go to war with each other. When every country is some form of capitalistic democracy, there will be no more wars between nations. Are you afraid the U.S. is going to go to war with Canada? How concerned are you that Japan might have a war with Australia? Getting rid of capital punishment will only be a change in a few governments. Individual humans will always engage in capital punishment. Always. Getting rid of capital punishment sure as Hell will not end greed.

[Bonsay]

It does go against what I said before. I was being sarcastic, I tried at least. Yes people will have to evolve into a new species, sadly that's what it takes. Personally I don't see capitalism as successful, maby for the rich capitalists, but that's not me. Yes, perhaps there will be no wars in an all capitalist world, but wars aren't the problem I have with capitalism, it's the poor people who will keep on suffering. I know I keep contradicting myself, but what's with the American prisons. I keep watching documentaries on Discovery channel, where it seems that the prisoners are running the prison. Having gang wars, rapes and other fun activities. Where is the discipline, solitude and quiet contemplation of commited crimes in a dark cell? The way they show it on TV is like it's a criminals fun park or something. What will it take for them to see the big picture? Something drastic maby, like a giant isolated prison with no controll where they can kill eacother off and starve to death.

[Moonbeam]

The same argument could be used about putting people in prison. It's more of an argument against incompetent forensics. The emergence of DNA oriented forensic science has done a lot to change the false conviction factor. The same argument can't be used against imprisonment. If the person hasn't been executed, they can be released and compensated. That won't make up for being put in prison, but at least they might be able to resume their life. Any opposition I have to the death penalty concerns the families of the convicts, not the convicts themselves. I have no sympathy for that scum. None. Do you have any sympathy for the who-knows-how-many unfairly convicted people on death row or already executed? The death penalty will never result in detectable deterrence until it is used consistently and swiftly. Executing somebody once in a blue moon twenty years after his crime will never work as a deterrent. We need to either have a capital punishment system all the way or or not have one at all. I thinks it is definitely on its way out. The U.S. surely will abandon the practices of Iran, China, etc. and join the rest of the civilized world one of these days. I think I might agree with that. If there is going to be a death penalty, let the family administer it. Good idea. Deja-vu; I think we've had this argument before. So, if the family is against the death penalty, should the accused murderer live? We have a legal system to prevent emotional responses and knee-jerk reactions, and make sure society is protected; not to let people "take revenge". We're at an odd place on this issue now--our conscience as a society is sufficiently developed that we make execution prohibitively laborious and expensive, but not enough that we just stop. That's another thing. It costs a lot more to kill someone than to keep them in prison forever. Like Gnome said, surely we can keep killers away from other people, and for less money. UM, that's your state--don't you care that the prosecuters care much more about a conviction and looking good than at finding out the truth? While those men were in prison, the real murderer was still free. Do you think if the one on death row had already been executed they would have admitted that they had the wrong guys? At that point, they might have done anything to cover up the fact that they made a mistake, and the real murderer would still be free. At least now they just look like idiots, not like idiots who killed the wrong guy. This time, at least. I think it's pretty obvious that the death penalty can't be made fair (hardly any murderers are actually put on death row, just the poor/insane/incompetent/etc), expedient, and even be applied to the right people. Meanwhile, only 50% of murders are actually solved, police are in budget crises, and tens of millions of dollars are wasted to kill one possibly unfairly convicted man who just didn't have enough money for a competent lawyer. It's a waste all around. I don't think the emotional argument is valid, because there are just as many people saying don't kill them for the same reason.

[Howie]

Putting the family in charge would never work. Blood is thicker than water. It would not be fair to them to have to make that decision and they could not make a clear judgment if they did. The same argument could be used about putting people in prison. It's more of an argument against incompetent forensics. The emergence of DNA oriented forensic science has done a lot to change the false conviction factor. Any opposition I have to the death penalty concerns the families of the convicts, not the convicts themselves. I have no sympathy for that scum. None. I switch my mind back and forth on the the death penalty all the time because I feel sorry for the families of the people who get executed. However, I feel a little bit sorrier for the families of the victims because they have no understandability factor to lean back on. They deserve as much closure as they can get, and that is exactly what the executions of the perpretrators gives them. It gives them maximum closure. I had never really sought empathy for the Family, but your right. It should be considered. The death penalty will never result in detectable deterrence until it is used consistently and swiftly. Executing somebody once in a blue moon twenty years after his crime will never work as a deterrent. We need to either have a capital punishment system all the way or or not have one at all. With the possibility of that at about zero, (becoming a deterrent) should it be considered that we get rid of the death penalty?

[suttsman]

I believe in the death penalty, since if you killed someone, you deserve to die yourself. But I only believe in its use for murder cases AND if there is a ton of evidence that this person did it. Anything else isn't worth being killed over IMO. Any one of those other major crimes can get life in prison.

[De-lousedInTheComatorium]

I believe in the death penalty. I've always had another side of me that argues against it but then I realize that it's a set punishment. A set punishment that people know they will receive if they murder. So by murdering, they are asking for it. Why not give it to them?

[nina]

I don't believe anyone has the right to take another's life. Period.

[Spartiate]

Convicts should be used more efficiently. Instead of just deposing them or letting them fester for 20 years draining the peoples' ressources, they could be put to work in hard labour camps. I can think of no worse punishment than being stripped of my identity and being forced to go through grueling manual labour all day. Go have them carve up a mountain.

[Universal Mind]

The same argument can't be used against imprisonment. If the person hasn't been executed, they can be released and compensated. That won't make up for being put in prison, but at least they might be able to resume their life. The person's family still has to deal with a family member being in prison. That is some very difficult stuff for them, and they don't deserve it. It still has to happen. Do you have any sympathy for the who-knows-how-many unfairly convicted people on death row or already executed? No way. Fuck the innocent. Do you have sympathy for the who knows how many unfairly convicted people who are in prison? Should we abolish prisons? I thinks it is definitely on its way out. The U.S. surely will abandon the practices of Iran, China, etc. and join the rest of the civilized world one of these days. China and Iran have Olympic teams just like we do. That does not make us uncivilized. We also have a lot of differences with China and Iran. Even Norway has things in common with those countries. That alone does not mean anything. Deja-vu; I think we've had this argument before. So, if the family is against the death penalty, should the accused murderer live? We have a legal system to prevent emotional responses and knee-jerk reactions, and make sure society is protected; not to let people "take revenge". We just don't want them taking revenge without the law. If the law works with the families, let them have their revenge. If the family doesn't want to kill the scum, then the state can find good subsitutes. That is if we are going to have the death penalty. I told you I have my issues with it. That's another thing. It costs a lot more to kill someone than to keep them in prison forever. Like Gnome said, surely we can keep killers away from other people, and for less money. That is because of our backed up appeals system. That is another thing we need to change if we are going to have a death penalty. It is what puts executions off for ten to twenty years. UM, that's your state--don't you care that the prosecuters care much more about a conviction and looking good than at finding out the truth? While those men were in prison, the real murderer was still free. Do you think if the one on death row had already been executed they would have admitted that they had the wrong guys? At that point, they might have done anything to cover up the fact that they made a mistake, and the real murderer would still be free. At least now they just look like idiots, not like idiots who killed the wrong guy. This time, at least. We don't have too many cases of wrongful executions. When it does happen, of course it is tragic. What makes you think that wouldn't matter to me? You don't have to convince me that overzealous prosecutors are garbage. I hope Mike Nifong (Duke rape case) gets run over by a bus. I think it's pretty obvious that the death penalty can't be made fair (hardly any murderers are actually put on death row, just the poor/insane/incompetent/etc), expedient, and even be applied to the right people. Meanwhile, only 50% of murders are actually solved, police are in budget crises, and tens of millions of dollars are wasted to kill one possibly unfairly convicted man who just didn't have enough money for a competent lawyer. It's a waste all around. Like I said, the way we do it is pathetic. You greatly exaggerate the frequency of wrongful convictions. I don't think the emotional argument is valid, because there are just as many people saying don't kill them for the same reason. Family members? Personally I don't see capitalism as successful, maby for the rich capitalists, but that's not me. Yes, perhaps there will be no wars in an all capitalist world, but wars aren't the problem I have with capitalism, it's the poor people who will keep on suffering. Did you see what I said about fat homeless people and luxury ridden "poor" people? Capitalism makes the poor much richer than they would be otherwise. Have you noticed that third world nations are never ever in any case capitalistic? Capitalism is good for an entire country. I know I keep contradicting myself, but what's with the American prisons. I keep watching documentaries on Discovery channel, where it seems that the prisoners are running the prison. Having gang wars, rapes and other fun activities. Where is the discipline, solitude and quiet contemplation of commited crimes in a dark cell? The way they show it on TV is like it's a criminals fun park or something. What will it take for them to see the big picture? Something drastic maby, like a giant isolated prison with no controll where they can kill eacother off and starve to death. I totally agree. The biggest low lifes in society are not afraid of prison. That is because they get to be with their friends all the time, eat free food three times a day, play sports, lift weights, pick on people who are in prison and not cut out for it, read books, watch movies, and do drugs all the time. I think prisoners (who should not be people convicted of victimless crimes) should have to be either in their cells by themselves or doing hard labor. They should even have to eat by themselves. If they need exercise, they should maybe get thirty minutes with a stationary bike the guards put in their cells temporarily. That kind of life would actually have criminals hating prison. A set punishment that people know they will receive if they murder. So by murdering, they are asking for it. Why not give it to them? Yeah, they signed up for it. That is a good way of looking at it. Putting the family in charge would never work. Blood is thicker than water. It would not be fair to them to have to make that decision and they could not make a clear judgment if they did. I don't think they should get to decide if the person dies. I think they should just have the option of doing the killing themselves, maybe. With the possibility of that at about zero, (becoming a deterrent) should it be considered that we get rid of the death penalty? I am not totally sure about the death penalty, but I don't think deterrent is the only consideration. That alone would not change my mind. There is a lot to consider.

[Taosaur]

Do you have sympathy for the who knows how many unfairly convicted people who are in prison? Should we abolish prisons? Coming from a social class inordinately represented in prisons, I have sympathy for the fairly and unfairly convicted people inside them. Should we abolish prisons without taking any other measures? No. Should we work to make a barbaric, crime-and-poverty-perpetuating institution obsolete? Hell yes. Our prisons prevent crime like gasoline puts out fires.

[wasup]

Capital punishment: Killing people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong.

[Universal Mind]

Capital punishment: Killing people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong. Capital punishment: Killing sociopathic scum who kill innocent people to make the sociopathic scum completely incapable of hurting anybody else, to give their victims' families maximum closure, and to show other sociopathic scum what could happen to them if they kill innocent people.

[Grod]

It does go against what I said before. I was being sarcastic, I tried at least. Yes people will have to evolve into a new species, sadly that's what it takes. Personally I don't see capitalism as successful, maby for the rich capitalists, but that's not me. Yes, perhaps there will be no wars in an all capitalist world, but wars aren't the problem I have with capitalism, it's the poor people who will keep on suffering. The people who work hard in a capitalist system are rewarded with money. Poor people can go get jobs and work; if you don't work hard you won't have money to support yourself and your family. Your success depends on how willing you are to work, your education, and how lazy you are. I believe capitalism is the best system. If you work hard; you will be rewarded. It sounds like you're disgruntled with the system, maybe you have a better idea in mind?

[Sarge_Maximus2]

Well, I don't know much about how the jailsystem works, how competent forensic scientists are, and I don't really care. To me, the death penalty is like this: Let's say you had a bike, and someone stole that bike. They were later caught by the police. Now, it's only fitting that they should give the bike back as part of thier punishment right? Or buy you a new one if they broke the one they stole. With murder, to me, it's the same. They killed a human being, but because we cannot raise the dead, the only thing that they can give back for te life of thier victim, is thier own life in return. To me, it makes perfect sense. It isn't about how right the punishment is, it's about the crime, and how the accused can make amends. In this case, they can only give up thier life for the life of the victim whom they forced to give up thiers.