Don't let the door hitcha in the ass on the way out! (Death penalty)

[MadMike]

Every person on death row later found to be innocent was, at one time, judged 100% guilty.

Human error is unavoidable. As long as there is the death penalty, there is a possibility of innocent people being killed.

And that's the problem I have with the death penalty. I'm of two minds on the subject for many reasons, but this is the one that leaves me unable to support it -- if you kill someone and later find out they were innocent, you can't bring them back.

[rahmota]

Every person on death row later found to be innocent was, at one time, judged 100% guilty.

Human error is unavoidable. As long as there is the death penalty, there is a possibility of innocent people being killed.

Which is why I am conditionally for it. Only in those conditions which are limited to a degree of certainty beyond the normal reasonable doubt. When the state is dealing with a life it must be held to a no doubt level of certainty.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Then why be them, why kill them in cold blood and give them no choice.

Big difference there. Scumbags are cold-blooded; they've proven that with their vile acts. Executioners aren't necessarily. They certainly don't have to take any pleasure from their job - in fact, it's probably better that they don't - but what they're doing is no different than putting down a rabid animal for the safety and good of the rest of the law-abiding decent citizenry.

I seriously doubt that many, if any, of the worst actually do reflect in prison over their crimes and ever come to any sort of repentance. Some of them have even flat-out said that if they had the chance to do it again, they would in a heartbeat. So much for 'rehabilitation.'

I rather like the way the ancient Egyptians went about things. When someone was to be executed - although, mind you, a lot of those weren't always quick and easy - what they did was erase all record of that person's name from public documents and monuments. To those ancients, erasing a person's name meant literally erasing them from existence, dooming them to what was basically an afterlife in hell, because in time they would be forgotten.

I think that's what we need to do with all these assholes getting fame out of the deal. They shouldn't get any sort of recognition beyond that of "this is what so-and-so did" in news accounts. No book deals. No interviews (only cops and the like would be allowed to do that). No publicity whatsoever that sensationalizes these wastes of carbon and possibly inspires future scumbags (and I do believe at least one has mentioned that he thought of another serial killer as his 'idol'; I don't remember the names though). Relegate them to oblivion where they belong.

[LadyMage]

ok you supporters forced my hand... if we do kill someone innocent on death row, what should happen to the people of the state? Remember DP is state funded, meaning everyone in that state kills the person on death row.

If that person is proven to be innocent, does that me we all get DP? We did murder that person in cold blood, we did it, its 100% proven. So what happens?


Just a little mind puzzle for everyone, have fun

[Lace Neil Singer]

I've noticed a lot of people throwing out the "loads of innocent people were executed" argument; do you have any official stats to back this up? Just wondering.

[Boozy]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412

128 people have been released from death row since 1973; 119 of these have been completely exonerated.

[Amethyst Hunter]

ok you supporters forced my hand... if we do kill someone innocent on death row, what should happen to the people of the state? Remember DP is state funded, meaning everyone in that state kills the person on death row.

If that person is proven to be innocent, does that me we all get DP? We did murder that person in cold blood, we did it, its 100% proven. So what happens?

Nothing. That's a strawman argument. By that same logic, we're all guilty, even anti-war liberals, of supporting an illegal and unjust war, since it's our tax dollars going to fund Dictator II's romp in IraqNam.

Place the blame/punishment firmly where it belongs - on the perpetrators, not on convenient targets. I don't consider myself responsible for any people that may have been innocent and who were executed because I had nothing to do with it. I wasn't involved in the trial process, I don't know anything about the case, I didn't make the decision to send the person to death row, I didn't cover up any 'evidence', I didn't pull the switch/stick in the needle/whathaveyou. I refuse to accept guilt for something I didn't do and had no part whatsoever in.

If innocent people were executed wrongly (and I'm not saying whether they were or weren't because I don't know the specifics of each and every individual case), then the system needs to get straightened out so that the chance of human error (accidental and deliberate) is reduced, and, like Rahmota said, it's applicable under particular and strict conditions, not necessarily applied to each and every person that gets tried for murder or whatnot.

Incidentally, your question is very similar to one involved in the abortion debate, that being: if abortion is made illegal and inaccessible in the States, what should happen to the women who have abortions anyway? No one can answer that because it's not a one-size-fits-all scenario and individual factors apply. The same is true here.

[Boozy]

I don't consider myself responsible for any people that may have been innocent and who were executed because I had nothing to do with it. I wasn't involved in the trial process, I don't know anything about the case, I didn't make the decision to send the person to death row, I didn't cover up any 'evidence', I didn't pull the switch/stick in the needle/whathaveyou. I refuse to accept guilt for something I didn't do and had no part whatsoever in.

That's the problem with our democracies. No one takes responsibility. You support the death penalty and have possibly voted for politicians, judges, and district attorneys who also support it. And yet refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the failures of your elected government?

Injustices are being done in your name. Anti-war protesters are campaigning tirelessly against the war for this very reason, but when you discover that people's lives are being destroyed by a system that you support, you shrug it off as "Not my fault, not my problem."

This "not my problem" attitude is the beginning of the end for democracies, in my opinion.

[LadyMage]

That's the problem with our democracies. No one takes responsibility. You support the death penalty and have possibly voted for politicians, judges, and district attorneys who also support it. And yet refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the failures of your elected government?

Injustices are being done in your name. Anti-war protesters are campaigning tirelessly against the war for this very reason, but when you discover that people's lives are being destroyed by a system that you support, you shrug it off as "Not my fault, not my problem."

This "not my problem" attitude is the beginning of the end for democracies, in my opinion.

beat me too it. We the people did vote for it, therefore we had the final say, I argument is no strawman, you voted for the person that wanted dp, therefore you allowed this to happen

this does put us anti dps in a bad spot but we are willing to make the sacrifce to prove a point (sound familiar?

[Amethyst Hunter]

That's the problem with our democracies. No one takes responsibility. You support the death penalty and have possibly voted for politicians, judges, and district attorneys who also support it. And yet refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the failures of your elected government?

Please point out to me where exactly I said that.

I vote. As a voter, I look at my options carefully. Those that seem trustworthy will earn my vote. That includes factors in regards to things like DP.

If an elected official betrays that trust, then absolutely they should be nailed for it (and while we're on this subject, WHY have George II and all his cronies not been impeached and slung into court yet like they damn well ought to be?? /rhetorical question). If blame is assigned to everybody by default, then why don't I just go around smacking the shit out of people who voted *both* times for Bush? (and believe me, I'd like to) After all, doesn't that mean that they're just as guilty of the war, the failing economy, the rise of terrorism, the rollback/restriction of women's and gay people's rights, and God only knows what else?

It doesn't. As convenient as it might be to take out my frustration on those people, it isn't right, because *they* did not make those poor decisions - it was the *officials* wielding the power that did. And you'd better believe there ARE scores of people protesting like crazy, and have done so since day 1 of 2001.

That's how you keep the system of checks and balances. My original argument still stands. It is NOT my personal fault if someone innocent dies on death row - it is strictly the fault of the people involved in the case that effed it up, and as such, THOSE are the people who deserve to be punished, not the average citizen on the street.

And as for the 100% truly-beyond-all-doubt guilty who do get death, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not inclined towards any sympathy whatsoever for them. Maybe we should have spared fine folks like John Wayne Gacy, or Ted Bundy, let them out on parole for good behavior in X number of years so they can go off and kill some more innocent people. Did you know that Ted Bundy once kidnapped two victims and kept them alive for several days before forcing one to watch while he tortured and killed the other?

Good riddance to those kind, I say. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw (DarthRetard, you'll love it): "It's God's job to judge bin Laden - it's OUR job to arrange the meeting!" - Marines

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Why do we kill people, who kill people, to show people that killing people is wrong?

We don't. We do it to make sure we don't have to worry about a killer killing someone else.

People who say it's not a deterent are kidding themselves. It sure is a deterent to the guy they kill. He's 100% guaranteed not to kill anyone else.

[LadyMage]

he can't kill cause he is dead, that's not a deterant, it didn't stop him the first time. I bet he did know about it but it didn't stop him

death after the fact is revenge, pure and simple

[LadyMage]

Please point out to me where exactly I said that.

I vote. As a voter, I look at my options carefully. Those that seem trustworthy will earn my vote. That includes factors in regards to things like DP.

If an elected official betrays that trust, then absolutely they should be nailed for it (and while we're on this subject, WHY have George II and all his cronies not been impeached and slung into court yet like they damn well ought to be?? /rhetorical question). If blame is assigned to everybody by default, then why don't I just go around smacking the shit out of people who voted *both* times for Bush? (and believe me, I'd like to) After all, doesn't that mean that they're just as guilty of the war, the failing economy, the rise of terrorism, the rollback/restriction of women's and gay people's rights, and God only knows what else?

It doesn't. As convenient as it might be to take out my frustration on those people, it isn't right, because *they* did not make those poor decisions - it was the *officials* wielding the power that did. And you'd better believe there ARE scores of people protesting like crazy, and have done so since day 1 of 2001.

That's how you keep the system of checks and balances. My original argument still stands. It is NOT my personal fault if someone innocent dies on death row - it is strictly the fault of the people involved in the case that effed it up, and as such, THOSE are the people who deserve to be punished, not the average citizen on the street.

And as for the 100% truly-beyond-all-doubt guilty who do get death, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not inclined towards any sympathy whatsoever for them. Maybe we should have spared fine folks like John Wayne Gacy, or Ted Bundy, let them out on parole for good behavior in X number of years so they can go off and kill some more innocent people. Did you know that Ted Bundy once kidnapped two victims and kept them alive for several days before forcing one to watch while he tortured and killed the other?

Good riddance to those kind, I say. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw (DarthRetard, you'll love it): "It's God's job to judge bin Laden - it's OUR job to arrange the meeting!" - Marines

1. God (if he exists) can judge on earth too last time I checked
2. I never said parole, lock them up for good, but don't kill them, use them for medical research or something, get some use!
3. Normally, we vote for the people in charge, Bush is a messed up and special case, but we are usually responsible, and people did vote for him
4. If I had the answer to the impeachment question, I would given it years ago

[ebonyknight]

If I thought that execution ever actually did something good for society, then I'd support it.
But:
1) It costs us as taxpayers far more to execute someone than it does to keep them separated from everyone else for life.
2) The death penalty so far in this country has been skewed towards minorities. Until we as a nation are a true meritocracy, then the government should not be putting people to death.
3) We've killed people who were found to be innocent. Until we as a nation can be 100% certain of a person's guilt, we should not be putting people to death.
4) It doesn't serve as a deterrent. It never has. What's the point? Revenge? We have a justice system, not a revenge system.
While my heart goes out to victim's families, the reality is that another death is not going to bring their dead back to life, or make the bereaved better people or really even make them feel better. It does nothing for them.

The only thing you are missing is a bow on top.

Couldn't have put it any better or more succinctly than that.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

he can't kill cause he is dead, that's not a deterant, it didn't stop him the first time. I bet he did know about it but it didn't stop him

death after the fact is revenge, pure and simple

It didnt' stop him the first time, but it sure stopped him every other time after that.

I don't see it as revenge, though I can certainly see why it would be viewed that way. I personally get no pleasure from knowing someone was executed. These people who sit outside the prison gates and cheer do not amuse me in the least. It's kind of sick and morbid.

To me, it's society protecting itself against those who have no respect for life and for our society. And while you could argue that life in prison does just that, consider this: does the guy in prison on a lesser charge deserve to have to share quarters with someon who might shiv him the shower or laundry? He hasn't been sentenced to death or injury. And I dont know about you, but frankly I'm so cynical that I do not trust the system to make sure the murderer never gets out. Consider prison overcrowding. How much would getting rid of the worst of the worst improve the lot of those who actually have to live in prison? And consider people like Polly Klaas and anyone else raped and murdered by repeat offenders who were released back into our midst.

Guys being condemned to death when they are not guilty is a big problem. Society failing to protect people against criminals who can not and will not be rehabilitated is an ENORMOUS problem.