If I Could Say Something About The Death Penalty

[THUNDER HANDS]

I'm a court reporter. I've been doing this job for about a year now. I got hooked up with an agency that sends me out to cover various legal proceedings, from depositions to parole hearings. One of the proceedings I happen to cover are things called Victim Impact meetings.

These are hearings where the victims of violent crimes, or their families (usually the surviving members of their families) sit down in a room with the commissioner of the State Board of Parole are tell him about how a inmate's crime has affected their lives. I then record their statements, transcribe them, and the commissioners on that board (three of the five members) read through it before they sit down with the inmate to discuss his possible release from parole.

I've been doing that particular aspect of my job for about four or five months now, and it's been the most heart-breaking work I've had to do in my life.

In the past couple of months I've seen family members come in and talk about how their loved ones were --

* stabbed 20 times in the neck and left to die over an 8-hour period in a bathtub.
* hit by a drunk driver driving a snowplow, who pushed their Dodge Neon 400 feet into a brick wall, exploding the car and left the father and an 11-year old daughter to burn alive, resulting in both of them being reduced to ashes by the time police arrived.
* a grandmother who was sliced from ear to ear and left to die, only to survive, call police, before the attacker came back and shot her - then went on to murder three other members of her family, including a 20-month old.
* an 11-year-old girl who was raped, beaten, tortured over a 2-week period, and kept in a dungeon built into a basement.
* a young girl, dragged into the woods and stabbed 15 times and raped, afterwords, and left to die in the woods.
* a woman who survived cancer as a child, grew up to become a counselor with special needs kids, get struck and killed by a hit-and-run drunk driver.

That's just a small sample. But the last one I mentioned is the most interesting case, and probably the most heartbreaking for me, because while, on the surface, it doesn't seem that exceptional - a person gets killed by a drunk driver - the impact it had on her family was probably greater and more wrenching than any other one I've sat through.

Her mother was dead inside. I sat 3 feet from her while she was talking about her daughter and I could just see in her eyes she was dead inside. No emotion. No tears.

Everyone else in the family was a wreck, talking about what the death of this girl meant to them. But the mother was stone cold the whole time. It was eerie watching her recount what her life is like now. How she doesn't visit family members anymore who have children. How she leaves town for the holidays and spends them alone in a hotel room. How she leaves stores if they're playing Christmas music over the loudspeaker.

--

I used to be against the death penalty when I was younger. I didn't think it was morally right for the government to take the life of someone, that it was nothing more than a revenge killing.

Now that I've gotten more insight into the whole process, and seen up close, every week, what happens to the families of these people who get murdered or raped or otherwise tormented, I understand why we have it.

You probably wouldn't understand unless you're there in the room with me. But these families get destroyed. Destroyed.

They're more shells than people. They cease to live, and just exist. They eat, they breathe, they sleep, but they're not living anymore. At least in any normal sense. There's no enjoyment. There's no fun at family gatherings. There's no fun at the holidays. Special occasions aren't as special as they should be.

They don't ever forget. And they're not able to move on.

Which brings me to the death penalty.

In every case that I mentioned above, the individuals who were charged with those crimes plead guilty in exchange for lesser sentences. It's easier for the State to do that. Oftentimes they end up with less than 25 years. And after their minimum sentence has expired, they're up for parole.

And I don't know if you know the way the parole process works. But if they're denied for parole the first time, they get to go before the Board again just two years later and re-apply. So every two years this process goes on. And every two years the families have to come back and give statements on how their lives have been affected.

If any wounds have started to heal, every two years they're ripped open again.

And each and every time I listen to one of these statements, the families say virtually the same thing.

If my loved one is dead, and has no future, and no chance for happiness and enjoyment - why should this person?
Why should this killer get a chance to be free, and a chance for a fresh start, when my loved one doesn't have that chance?
Why do I have to live in pain forever when he can just start over? I can't start over.

and to me, those are powerful arguments.

As for my own personal view, I'm sure some of you who oppose the death penalty would say, what's wrong with life in prison without the possibility of parole?

Well, to me what's wrong with that is:

(a) that already is a death sentence, but your sentencing them to die of old age, or whatever natural disease or prison-incident that might happen, instead of lethal injection or whatever method is used in your state.

(b) if you're keeping someone in jail for life without the possibility of parole, your essentially telling them that no matter how well they behave in prison, they're never getting out. so what's the incentive for being well-behaved. It increases the likelihood they'll injure or kill other inmates or corrections officers. what do they have to lose?

(c) It doesn't give closure to the families of those killed. It may not speak well to the nature of human beings, but revenge is a natural emotion. And if the families know that whoever killed their loved one is dead, they will, for the most part, feel justice has been served. It won't bring their loved one back. It probably won't make them feel any better. But it will bring a sense of closure. Not going to bed at night knowing that the person who killed your loved one is still alive, still breathing, still laughing and watching tv or reading a book. Basically doing the things your loved one can't do = don't underestimate that feeling of anger and resentment.

---

Now, for full disclosure purposes. I'm going to admit I'm not spiritual or religious in any way. I don't care if 'Thou shall not kill' is on the 10 commandments or not. I don't care if two wrongs don't make a right. I don't care if an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I don't care if the death penalty is not a deterrant. I don't think the people who committed these crimes cared if their state had the death penalty or not.

People who are charged with killing or raping or torturing other people deserve a fair trial. If they're found guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt and with 100% certainty (DNA evidence or otherwise), they should be put to death. I don't believe they deserve better treatment than what they afforded their victims. If it was your loved one, I think you might feel the same way.

[MNDemNY]

1. How many wrongly convicted people are you willing to allow to die?

1? 2? more? No death penalty is perfectly administered, so what is your "allowable " number of innocents put to death in order to keep a death penalty. If you say Zero, then we can not have the death penalty. I say ZERO.

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. i don't think any is an acceptable number

that's why I said at the end if they're found guilty (either by pleading guilty, or with incontroveratable evidence such as DNA) they should be put to death.

If there's a doubt, there's a doubt, and they should not not be.

[RedCappedBandit]

55. It is impossible to find somebody guilty...

..without a shadow of a doubt.

[uppityperson]

113. No, it's not. If I walked up to someone in a grocery store, and stabbed them,

with camera running, lots of people around, cop right there, it'd be pretty easy to find me guilty without a shadow of a doubt. This is not the usual thing, but impossible? No.

[RedCappedBandit]

114. Yes, it is.

Even in your 'perfect' scenario, there could always be something more that doesn't meet the eye.

Edit: Regardless, even if there was the most minute chance that a person could be convicted without any doubt (which there isn't) it would still be unjust to apply the death penalty, because in all other cases there would still be that doubt, and innocent lives would inevitably be put in danger.

[uppityperson]

128. What you put in edit I agree with, and am anti-death penalty too.

Just "impossible" is too much. Very improbable, yes. Impossible? No.

[madeline_con]

147. Name something that doesn't meet the eye in that scenario. n/t

[Djinn]

129. do you know how many

DNA finds have been overturned. The fact that you think DNA constitutes incontrovertible evidence suggests you need to learn a little more.

This is a perfect example of why it is problematic to let emotion rule the justice process.

Personally I have never had a problem with someone being executed for a vile crime. I don't think some things can be rehabilitated and I see little point in life in prison. I do think some people by dint of their actions have little right to moan about the sanctity of life.

HOWEVER I am well aware of what being wrongly convicted can do to a person - even when they're not facing a death sentence.

Wrongful convictions also ruin the lives of individuals and their families. So until we have a MUCH MUCH better justice system I can't support the death penalty.

It is also somewhat arrogant of you to presume that not hearing a litany of impact statements means one can not empathise with these families. Many people here at DU have been victims of violent crimes themselves. They have a visceral empathy unlike your theoretical empathy.

[bryant69]

5. How many wrongly convicted people are you willing to allow to suffer decades in prison?

1? 2? more? no lifetime incarceration is perfectly administered, so what is your "allowable" number of innocents given lifetime incarceration in order to keep lifetime incarceration as a potential penalty? if you say Zero, than we cannot have lifetime incarceration as a penalty. I say no more than 10%.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. A few

I think it is sensible to trade an increased risk of being locked up for life wrongly for a reduced risk of being a victim of crime, at the exchange rate provided by decent trials.

I do not think it is sensible to trade a risk of being wrongly put to death, at the rates currently possible.

[bryant69]

20. Isn't lifetime incarceration inherently crueler than putting someone to death? n/t

[MNDemNY]

46. That argument could be made, but is moot if you don't want any errant executions.

[bryant69]

64. I guess I'm fine with executing innocent people n/t

[redqueen]

68. ...

:wtf:

[ProfessorGAC]

86. Not Your Finest Moment, Bryant

Such callousness is never an admirable trait.
The Professor

[bryant69]

92. It's mandated by the way Magic Rat and others frame the question

It's undeniable that as long as you execute people there will be innocent people executed; I'd look like an idiot arguing that we just won't or don't execute any innocent people. That leaves two options; caving and agreeing to oppose the death penalty or accepting the deaths of innocents as the price for the other benefits of the death penalty.

You don't do yourself any favors by papering over the unpleasant sides of your political stances.

Bryant

[ProfessorGAC]

96. I Don't Paper Anything Over

I oppose the death penalty. The unpleasant side of that is people who do really horrible things don't suffer vengeance, merely punishment. That notion is inescapalbe. I'm not papering anything over.

But, i honestly believe that a preponderance of people who think that prison is some "better" option for the convicted don't really understand how bad prison really is.

Prison is a very bad place. Having to spend the rest of one's life there is not anything short of punishment. Punishment is punishment. It may not be vengeance, but it's still really bad.
The Professor

[Ignis]

100. Not at all. You're arguing against a straw man.

The very important part of the equation that you're (purposely?) overlooking is that life imprisonment without parole can be corrected. Execution cannot be corrected.

That is the most succinct argument against the death penalty, given the fact that we can never have 100% assurance of guilt.

[Djinn]

132. what benefits of the death penalty

it is PATENTLY obviously not doing ANYTHING to deter murder. Every other western nation has a lower murder rate, most without the death penalty. They also have lower incarceration rates overall meaning they spend far less taxpayer funds on prisons.

What exactly are these benefits you're getting?

[mitchum]

118. Yes, it is, but somehow the "not in my name" advocates...

are able to make a self-satisfied accommodation with that being done "in their name"
Strange, isn't it?

[Djinn]

134. huh?

Some of us oppose BOTH the death penalty and ANY wrongful incarceration. You're acting like an opposition to the death penalty is an acceptance of injustice.

Talk about strawman

[mitchum]

142. I said NOTHING about wrongful incarceration...

I said that locking a human being up in a cage for the rest of their life is even crueler than terminating their existence. You are the one who brought the straw to the party, my friend.

So, how do you feel about locking a human being up in a cage for the rest of their life "in your name"?

[Djinn]

148. AGAIN STRAWMAN

I don't have problem at all executing or incarcerating the GUILTY. I have EQUALLY as much problem with incarceration of the innocent as I do the death penalty for the innocent.

Your point is utterly irrelevant.

You are acting as if people who oppose the death penalty must ALL approve of prison for life.

I don't oppose the death penalty because it's cruel - ergo your whole post - STRAW

[mitchum]

159. ?????

"I don't have (a) problem at all executing or incarcerating the GUILTY"
But earlier you said that you DID oppose the death penalty. Well, which is it? You seem to be very self-contradictory. Or maybe just a really bad memory?

"I have EQUALLY as much problem with incarceration of the innocent as I do the death penalty for the innocent"
Well yeah, so do I. So, I really don't get your point there.

"You are acting as if people who oppose the death penalty must ALL approve of prison for life"
I am "acting" nothing. Prison for life is overwhelmingly offered up as the alternative for the DP by the majority of those who oppose the DP "in their name"
My question was directed at those who seemingly have no problem with locking a person up in a cage for a lifetime "in their name"

My whole post is not straw. It appears that YOU are made uncomfortable by the question that I asked.
But don't take it too badly. People were made uncomfortable by that exact same question when George Bernard Shaw asked it a hundred years ago.

You can shrilly scream STRAWMAN all you want. That doesn't make it so.

[Djinn]

130. can't agree with that

I'd rather see 10 guilty people unpunished than one innocent person jailed. I wouldn't wish prison on many guilty people let alone innocent ones, it stays with you long after release.

Then you have the issue of nations with high rates of incarceration being the same nations with the highest crime rate.

The US is one of the few western nations with the death penalty and has one of the highest percentages of imprisoned citizens of anywhere on earth yet it has the highest murder rates. Clearly the death penalty and high rates of incarceration aren't making you safer.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

140. What about seeing all guilty people go free?

You cannot have a policy of imprisoning anyone, ever, without imprisoning some innocent people sometimes.

Any punishment the state chooses to impose on criminals will, inevitably, sometimes be misapplied.

As such, you have to support either never imprisoning anyone ever, or imprisoning a few innocent people.

I fully agree that the justice system should err heavily on the side of not imprisoning the innocent, but it is inevitable that sometimes it will, and this should be acknowledged.



Incidentally, using correlation between incarceration rates and crime rates as evidence that prison doesn't work is an absolutely textbook fallacy. Of course there's a correlation between crime and incarceration - places with more criminals have more criminals to lock up. That isn't evidence that they wouldn't have still more criminals if they didn't have high incarceration rates (they might, but it's not evidence for it).

[Djinn]

149. I didn't suggest anything for the justice system

I simply said that I prefer to see the guilty free than the innocent locked up. I don't actually expect the govt to make all legislation based on my morality.

places with more criminals have more criminals to lock up.

want to talk about fallacy? the point is NOT every nation locks up all it's criminals.

Nation A has 5 murderers, 5 burgulars and 5 non violent drug related crimes

Only the violent criminals are locked up (all of the murderers and we'll say 3 of the burgulars)

Nation B has 5 murderers, 5 burgulars and 5 non violent drug related crimes

ALL are locked up.

Nation A - 15 criminals, 8 prisoners

Nation B - 15 criminals, 15 prisoners

[Donald Ian Rankin]

150. That's not what you were arguing, though, was it?

As far as I could follow it, you were suggesting that the fact that the US has a high prison population and high crime rates is evidence that locking more people up does not reduce crime. That is the fallacy that I was objecting to.

[Djinn]

152. not a fallacy at all

if I simply relied on the non causal relationship then yes it would be, I don't, but this thread really wasn't about comparative justice.

If you want reams of off topic links to studies that do demonstrate a link between high levels imprisonment and high levels of recidivism, inability for people to gain legit employment and higher levels of criminal networking (all leading to increased crime rates). Just PM me and I'll be happy to provide you with them.

[MNDemNY]

42. At least that is not FINAL and can be corrected, when mistakes are mane.

[RedCappedBandit]

57. It isn't irreversible.

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. A person who is found to have wrongly been sentenced to decades in prison

can be set free.

A person who is wrongly executed not only can't be freed, the evidence for the crime is destroyed and the records are sealed. Posthumous vindication, in our system, is impossible.

[quispquake]

2. I understand where you're coming from...

But, I can't agree...

If we put the people who do this to death, we are NO BETTER than they are. It's simple revenge, and I think as a society we SHOULD be beyond this...

And I'm saying this after my close cousin was murdered and slowly left to die by her psycho ex-boyfriend (it took her seven hours to die after being stabbed 42 times). Yes, our whole family was devastated...but NONE of us believe that he should be put to death. Life in jail without parole can be an effective punishment...And the death penalty is FAR MORE OFTEN used with non-whites than with whites...

It is for REVENGE. It doesn't help stop crimes like this any more than life in prison does...And I think at this point in our society, the death penalty, (along with War, Poverty, and Racial & Sexual inequality to name but a few) are holdovers from our earlier existence, and it's time to put ALL to rest...Ending the death penalty is a first, important step, but it's only the FIRST step.

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. you're not incorrect

it may, in fact, be just for revenge. But one person's revenge is another person's justice.

Stopping the death penalty won't make us any more human, or moral. If you think that, you have a lot more faith in humanity than I do.

[quispquake]

33. But shouldn't we be past revenge?

Punishment, yes, definitely! But wouldn't(and I say this with all due respect) this logic also allow for vigilantism? If one person's revenge is another person's justice, then doesn't this open the door to whatever form of justice a person believes in?

I have to disagree when you say stopping the death penalty won't make us any more moral. It does...revenge isn't justice...I fully agree with life in prison without parole...Time is a great vehicle for justice...time to realize what you've done, and time to realize what you could have done.

I fully feel that Timothy McVeigh should never have been put to death. Instead of YEARS and YEARS of dealing with what he did, he's now a martyr to thousands of other like minds. I fully feel that the monster that murdered my cousin (when he was 20) will be punished MORE by living in jail the rest of his life, and realizing how badly his incredibly selfish act destroyed not only her life, but his own.

[THUNDER HANDS]

48. well, some would argue

that the death penalty is a form of punishment. It's also not usually carried out immediately after sentencing either, it's usually a few years later.

The Timother McVeigh case was just odd. I think there was more there than we were lead to know, and his speedy execution had a lot to do with it.

[MNDemNY]

47. Again, how many innocents are you willing to sacrifice in the name of revenge?

[THUNDER HANDS]

50. i said none

I think I've made it clear that it's to be used only in instances of 100% culpability.

[MNDemNY]

52. Who decides when it's "100%" a human? Get my point?

It can NEVER be 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, when human beings are involved. Never.

[THUNDER HANDS]

54. yes it can

and to say it can't is just being stubborn. There are instances where there is 100% rock-solid proof. To say there never is, frankly, is being unfair.

[MNDemNY]

58. Humans collect the evidence..

humans analyze the evidence, humans pass the verdict, humans lie, humans are mistaken. Humans are not infallible. If humans are involved it can not be that perfect.And it is delusional to think that it can.

[THUNDER HANDS]

60. not everything is perfect

but that doesn't also mean that everything is ALWAYS imperfect.

[MNDemNY]

63. ???

[THUNDER HANDS]

75. I'll explain

Not everything is perfect - meaning 100% of cases are not always 100% correct.

Everything is not ALWAYS imperfect - meaning 100% of cases are not always 100% incorrect.

[MNDemNY]

85. That is circular reasoning. No good.

[MNDemNY]

61. And ,again WHO decides when it's "Rock-solid"?Someone has to make that JUDGMENT.

[THUNDER HANDS]

76. usually

12 jurors and a judge. And they have to be in unanimous agreement.

But like I said, if there's a question, even the teensies, tinyest question about guilt or innocence, then the DP should be taken off the table.

[MNDemNY]

84. Some human must make the decision whether there is doubt. No good.

[MNDemNY]

87. Maybe, when juries and judges are infallible. Only then.

And as we know, that is not going to happen. It can't.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

126. The legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, folks.

Which has no numerical definition.

[redqueen]

3. You're wrong. Not everyone "can't move on".

Some victims' familes even find it within themselves to forgive the murderer eventually.

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. true

they do. And I've taken some victim impact statements where the family members don't agree with the death penalty. But even those that don't think it's unfair that those people should be allowed to live while their loved one's cannot.

Everyone's moral code is different. But ultimately I don't think supporting the death penalty makes you as bad as the person who initially did the killing. The result may be the same, but the initial victims didn't have a lawyer defending them, or a judge and jury deciding their fate. Nor did they usually get the benefit of a fairly humane way to be executed.

[redqueen]

13. No, believing in "an eye for an eye" doesn't make you a bad person.

Just unenlightened, in my opinion.

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. well

we're all entitled to our opinions. and I respect yours. :)

[redqueen]

23. Namaste.

:)

[MNDemNY]

49. I think it does.

[spanone]

6. you can put them to death, but i will have nothing to do with it.

[Hamlette]

8. You make your own argument. The DP is ONLY about revenge.

If that is fine with you, you can support the DP but it is not fine with me. I think it is unchristian (wrong).

I also note that the example you use of the drunk driver will never get the DP so how does that family's pain go away...under your system of revenge?

Finally, I would add that a victim is not required to go to the parole hearing and not all states allow hearings every 2 years. Regardless of how often they are held, they are usually perfunctory and the victim's family need not attend. And, if you don't like that system and you want to insure those who are behind bars are violent animals, lock them up and tell them nothing they can do will alter their fate because there is no possibility of redemption.

I do not want to lessen the impact of your story but many of us have suffered loss of a cruel nature, even murder, and learn to carry on.

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. I'm sure there are many

who have learned to stifle away their pain. But there are also many who have not. And when you sit down in a room with them, and talk to them, and see firsthand their anguish, it's hard not to tell them that you're going to let their loved one's killer play cards or watch tv in prison for the rest of his life because your Christian beliefs (of whatever beliefs) tell you the DP is wrong.

[Lex]

19. It doesn't bring their loved one back. It doesn't make it right

that their loved one was killed.

[THUNDER HANDS]

25. no, it doesn't

but nobody ever said it does.

[Lex]

37. You talked of the families' anguish

and so that is why I said that.

I do believe the families are mightily anguished.

[Hamlette]

71. I have sat with those people, I worked in the criminal justice system for 10+ years

Your examples are exactly why we do not turn "justice" over to the "loved ones". We have decided as a society that revenge doesn't work.

But we still hang on to the DP. Because we can't quite let all of our "need" for revenge go.

My loved one's killer is now out of prison. It is of no concern to me. It was not about him.

[THUNDER HANDS]

78. if everyone

shared your opinion, we might not need the DP.

But some people may not be able to cope as well as you appeared to have been able to.

[Hamlette]

106. and for that we should all kill in their name?

The DP does not give them the revenge they want and if it does, they should see a shrink instead.

Revenge is not an emotion we as a society should promote and the DP promotes revenge, a very destructive emotion.

Mine is not an opinion that everyone needs to share nor is my coping mechanism better than anyone elses. I just recognize that revenge gets me no where. It is a vile, base, disgusting emotion and I should do all that I can go rid myself of it.

The state should not support it. It cheapens life and feeds into a "kill 'em" attitude by so many here. If you wonder why the US is such a violent society you might start looking at the fact that we saction and legalize revenge. What kind of message does that send to our children?

Speaking of children. What if your child were falsely accused of murder and sentenced to die? Having visited many people on death row I can tell you that remains for me a worse nightmare than any other. Visiting my son on death row, knowing the "society" will kill him for something he did not do. If you don't have children, think of it with the person you love most in the world. Living the rest of your life without that person because he was framed etc. And if you think DNA is infallable, you are wrong.

The worse.

[Djinn]

137. you need to spend some time in a prison

play cards or watch tv in prison

you make it sound like a Butlin's holiday camp

[Lex]

17. Cold-blooded revenge killing by the state is what it is

and what the OP approves of.

That's the case laid out anyway.


I submit that the death penalty should be and is about OUR standards as a civilized society and not about what the criminal did, no matter how heinous.

[THUNDER HANDS]

24. I think cold-blooded is inaccurate

if you take great lengths to prove guilt, give that person adequate resources to prove their innocence, and go through a fair process of evaluating such, then it's not cold blooded.

stabbing someone and leaving them to die a hard, brutal, lonely death is cold blooded.

[Lex]

35. It is calculated and planned

and is an intentional extinguishing of a life in a dispassionate way by the state. That's cold-blooded to me.

[THUNDER HANDS]

39. well, i guess our definitions are going to have to differ then

because to me, when I think of calculated and planned, I think of plotting how you're going to kidnap someone and kill them, or how you're going to break into someone's house and murder the entire family - not necessarily how you're going to go through the process of providing evidence to prove someone's guilty - providing them adequate defense against the charges, and letting a judge and jury make a decision.

[Lex]

43. Calculated and planned

can be for both good things and bad things.

The definition doesn't change due to whether the event is just or unjust.


Same with the meanings of dispassionate and cold-blooded.

[THUNDER HANDS]

53. well there's also something to be said

for knowing ahead of time what consequences one's actions will lead to.

Usually people know that if they kill someone, they themselves are subject to the same fate.

A person sitting at home, or walking to school, usually has no idea what the consequences await them by their actions - if that is what they were doing right before being killed.

[Djinn]

138. how would you write that into statute?

this vague notion you have of "100% certain proof" is almost impossible for a start but how exactly would you write into legislation that someone needs to be "100% certain". What exactly would that constitute, you've said earlier that DNA would be good enough for you as you seem to think it's foolproof. It isn't. So how would you define this standard?

[mitchum]

122. Which is it? Cold blooded or barbaric vengeful blood lust?

It can't be both...

[SidDithers]

101. I think it's wrong too, but unchristian? Don't think so ...

The US is possibly the most christian nation on earth, and is one of the very few still practicing the death penalty.

Sorry, but when I see christian = good, unchristian = bad, my hypocrisy meter automatically goes off.

Sid

[aikoaiko]

9. We need the DP for a simple progressive reason: No Justice, No Peace.

We used to say it. There are times where a jury can be absolutely certain that the accused did the crime and the crime is heinous enough to warrant the DP. Life in prison is good for many terrible crimes of extreme violence, but sometimes some criminals shouldn't live anymore.

[EFerrari]

12. Some of the hardest working advocates against the DP

are family members who have lost someone to violent crime.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. There may be people it is right to murder. It is not right to murder such people.

I am not certain one way or the other whether there are some people who commit crimes so horrible that it is just to murder them.

I *am* certain that the state should not murder such people, because if it does so it will inevitably murder other people too.

There is no-one so evil that imprisoning them for life is not a sufficiently harsh punishment.

[redqueen]

21. There you go.

Well said. :thumbsup:

[THUNDER HANDS]

31. so your concern

is that the state would execute innocent people?

in time, I think that can be fixed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Or people whose crimes didn't merit execution.

Either because they weren't sufficiently serious, or because there were mitigating factors.

I do not believe that that could be avoided without magic. It certainly isn't avoidable in a country where prosecutors and judges are elected, and will hence consider electoral factors as well as justice when passing sentence.

And, as I said, I'm not convinced that it is ever just to murder anyone, when you have the option of locking them up for life instead.

[ismnotwasm]

16. I'm still against it

One issue I've thought about often and long, and don't get me wrong, I understand your opinion, I used to share it. (I'm agnostic, and frankly don't understand why religion would play a factor anyone's feelings about the death penalty anyway)

But reading accounts of crimes, and then reading accounts of actual executions, it hits me in the gut ethically. Murder is murder, and I refuse to accept state sanctioned murder.

[THUNDER HANDS]

28. it's a more-than-fair argument

I tend to think of it as euthanizing a person, rather than murdering them.

I mean, it's not as if the death penalty is a guy gets thrown to a pack of wolves who rip him apart.

For the most part, it's done as humanely as possible. But if your ultimate objection is the resulting death, I can understand your position.

[porphyrian]

22. Maybe we should just let the families kill the convicted however they like.

If vengeance is the justification for the death penalty, why waste all the time and money on incarceration at all? Just have some armed officers ready to kill the convict if the family is unable or unwilling to, right there behind the court house. It could be like the movie Hostel, but legal. Hell, charge admission to watch and give a big cut to the family before paying the promoters. And, if someone is found innocent after being executed, their family could fight a death match with the family that killed their relative!

Or, we could just realize that additional horror does not undo past horror, that putting someone to death won't bring someone back to life and that our justice system has a number of problems that need to be fixed so that it's fair and actually just before and if we are to allow it to determine who lives or dies.

[THUNDER HANDS]

29. true

"Or, we could just realize that additional horror does not undo past horror, that putting someone to death won't bring someone back to life and that our justice system has a number of problems that need to be fixed so that it's fair and actually just before and if we are to allow it to determine who lives or dies."


i agree.

[LeftishBrit]

26. If I really thought that the death penalty would prevent these tragedies...

I might support it. But all the evidence is that countries and states with the death penalty have at least as much murder and violent crime as those that do not. And the innocent can be and are found guilty. At least if someone is sentenced to life imprisonment, they can be released if evidence later comes up to exonerate them. You can't bring someone back to life if they've been executed.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. that's absolutely true

which is why changes need to be made to the system.


on a related note, I'm not advocating the current system as it is, just the general issue of the death penalty.

There need to be several proven factors at play before someone is eligable for the death penalty.

[question everything]

30. The death penalty does not provide a closure, either

Several years ago I read a story about it. Perhaps because it takes so many years from verdict to execution. The family leaves through this, is consumed by this, waiting for the end and when it comes.. it leaves a void in their hearts. There is nothing to sustain them now that it is over. (Which is true for any cause that consumes us until it is completed).

Perhaps there can be a middle ground between coming for parole every couple of years and life without parole: no parole at all for the first 10 years. This may be enough time for family members to heal, to, at least, grow thick scabs. Also for the criminal to grow and to mature and to settle.

[THUNDER HANDS]

34. from what I've seen

and I've seen people who've come back for these hearings 8, 9, 10 times - which means they've been doing it for 20 years or more.

The scabs aren't thick enough to heal.

I've seen people who came for the first time, 15 years after the crime was committed, and you'd think it just happened yesterday.

[Tejas]

32. google "death row" + "lyrics"

Death row idolizes criminals and gets songs written about them as if they were martyrs. Throw them in a cell like a common POS and be done with it, less wannabes out there would then want to be like them.

This of course does not address the families, hopefully the fact that the POS will rot his life away will help.

[immoderate]

36. Among the many reasons to not allow the death penalty...

It makes imposition of death the most majestic and solemn deed the government (who is all of us) can perform. No government function commands the time and resources that go into implementing a death penalty. It's implemented with ceremony and posturing. It becomes a sacrament.

There will be some that are ill enough that they will feed off the grandeur that act encompasses. We should never associate killing with righteousness.

--IMM

[THUNDER HANDS]

44. as long as the government can sanction war

or provide their police officers with guns and deadly weapons, the government will sanction death.

At least in the instance of the DP, the person dying got a fair trial first. Hopefully.

[redqueen]

66. That's someone's life haning on that "hopefully"...

are you really comfortable with that?

[THUNDER HANDS]

79. I don't think I've said once

that I'm in favor of the death penalty without 100% certainty.

I'm more than in favor, today, of a moritorum on the DP until standards can be set across the board and whatever problems exist in the system can be worked out.

[redqueen]

80. That is inherently unfair.

You are allowing those who can't be proven to be 100% guilty off lightly... while only the "lucky" few are executed.

And just for clarity, even if we could prove with 100% certainty that people were guilty, I still wouldn't support killing for "justice" (revenge).

[THUNDER HANDS]

82. if you can't be proven 100% guilty

meaning, no way, no chance, no how, that case will ever get overturned - then you should shouldn't be given the DP.

but I respect your stance on the DP. It's not an easy decision to make for anyone involved.

[immoderate]

99. You cite instances of defense.

A cop should only fire his weapon in self defense. A soldier is (or should be) defending the country. When the enemy surrenders, the shooting stops. None of this is carried on with all the pomp and ceremony of a state execution.

--IMM

[redqueen]

45. You make a very, very good point.

Thanks so much for bringing that up...

[THUNDER HANDS]

59. it is a good point

but I don't think I ever said it was a righteous thing.

[redqueen]

67. It doesn't matter if you say it is or not.

It becomes righteous because you are giving the government power to take away someone's life in the name of "Justice".

[Smith_3]

40. I would recommend setting the penalty to life-in-prison with absolutely no possible parole.

and a yearly review of the evidence to ensure there was no mistake. no parole hearings.

i could agree with your reasoning. however as long as there is the slightest chance of false conviction (and it is in fact physically impossible to eliminate such a chance) i think death penalty cannot be an option.

you said yourself life in prison is the same as a death sentence. the difference though is that in event of error not everything is lost.

[THUNDER HANDS]

41. well

I think there are crimes that have no chance of being a false conviction.

If, for instance, the crime was captured on video tape. Or there were witnesses. Or ther was DNA evidence. Or a combination of those.

But certainly the chance of a false conviction looms in a lot of cases, and that's why I stated it would have to be with 100% certainty before a DP sentence would be handed down.

[RedCappedBandit]

62. well

you're incorrect in your belief. such things may not be so simple.

[Smith_3]

72. hmm...

i really recommend the movie "Minority Report" or better even to read the corresponding book by Phillip K. Dick.

the problem i see is that you are looking at each case as an individual incident. that is fine, its the human approach and its certainly important to do so. but when you decide wether or not to have death penalty in your country, you are talking about setting up a general system. this system will require input by a large number of individuals and will always, to a certain extent, behave in a way that is beyond your control. evidence can be faked, witnesses can lie, even video tapes can be forged and in the worst case, the system might even be corrupted by external infiltration, conspiracy etc.

i don't think it is even theoretically possible to create a system that is 100%. you look at the individual case and think you are absolutely sure that the person is guilty. you might be right, but who will guarantee that another jury with a different intent will view a different case so objectively...

[THUNDER HANDS]

81. if you set the standard high enough

you can create a system for the DP to work and be used properly.

I never said I was for advocating the DP based on one witness' testimony and no forensic evidence.

[Smith_3]

83. i just don't believe that it is possible.

not with real life people and governments involved. i guess its a matter of belief in the end.

i would be interested to know how many false convictions there are per year in the states btw.

[Djinn]

139. Video tape and DNA

are your suggestion for infallibility? Jesus Christ on a bike I hope you are NEVER on any jury I'm ever facing.

[marmar]

51. You don't become better as a society by sanctioning what you say you hold in contempt.....

.... and it's never been an effective deterrent.

[THUNDER HANDS]

56. true

but that argument only goes so far as to to the issue about whether making society better and being a deterrent is the objective of the death penalty.

[Lex]

74. The DP doesn't "make society better" nor it is a "deterrant."

nt

[pansypoo53219]

65. geath is easy.

life in prison, no parole is hard. and mistakes can be corrected. also, reason i have to believe in hell.

[TreasonousBastard]

69. Your experience is why we can't have the death penalty,..

becaue it is an emotional response to the grief of the victims families.

Victim impact statements are a sham simply to villify the criminal even more than he has been, and a prosecutor's trick to get a heavier sentence. What they do is give them false hope that they will gain some relief from their tragedy.

The wheels of justice turn far too slowly to allow these friends and families to spend so much time reliving their grief every few years when there's a new hearing.

Besides, it skews the sentencing from the facts of the crime to the effect on the family. Should one savage torture and eat a homeless vagrant, he will be sentenced as a matter of course with no one speaking for him. Should another kill someone in a barfight and leave a widow and four hungry kids, they will all be trailed out in court to tell their sad tales, with the predictable results.

Show me the families who, after the execution, throw a party, and claim now everythjing's just fine and dandy and they have gleefully reached "closure."

Nope, not that many. Groups like Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation and Journey of Hope show us the famiies who, after the execution, feel even more lost. They have lost a loved one, and the killing of his killer didn't do a thing to help. Now they have nothing left.

[THUNDER HANDS]

89. emotions will be inherent in everything

We use emotions to push almost every issue in public policy debate.

It's why PETA uses photos of baby seals being clubbed. Because they're cute.
It's why anti-war activists use testimony of armless or legless soldiers. Because it's heartbreaking.
It's why abortion rights supporters use photos of coathangers, or anti-abortion people use photos of fetuses. It creates an emotional response.

Emotion will be inherent in any matter up for public debate.

As for the victim's families who managed to move on, or feel worse once their killer was executed - it's a good argument, but to me, it goes no further than the argument from a war widow who thinks the war should continue because, well, what did her husband die for?

People will have different feelings on different subjects. I think the victims families who feel worse after their loved one's killers are executed are the exception, rather than the rule. If my limited experience is any indication. I could be wrong though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. If we do what the murderers do then we become them.

I don't believe that vengeance is any more of a justification for murder than greed, lust, irresponsibility, jealousy, or any other motivation.

However the heinous the act, murdering the murderer, by whatever means, is in itself an heinous act.

Note: My father was shot and killed, on purpose, by a 15 year old relative. I was 4 at the time. Over the years, that fact, caused me no small amount of trouble.

The killer escaped punishment entirely. I can conceive of no benefit that I, or any of my relatives, could have received if my brother had been executed.

[THUNDER HANDS]

90. I'm sorry for your loss.

that must have been devastating.

[Phillycat]

73. I agree with you completely.

I am pro-death penalty.

[brazos121200]

77. For many years I opposed the death penalty in any and

all cases based mainly on the fact that there is an unequal administration of justice in the different states, plus the fact that poorer people tend to gete the death penalty more often than richer people for the same crime. Lately I have changed my opinion, I believe I support the death penalty in some cases of mass murderers and serial killers. These crimes are so heinous I don't want these people alive in a prison somewhere where escape is theoretically possible. Usually, the evidence convicting the guilty of these are crimes is massive so there is virtually no chance of convicting the wrong person. I still oppose the death penalty for cases of single murders and cases where a person is the accomplice of someone else who murders. Often the evidence in these cases is shaky and therefore more unreliable.

[iamthebandfanman]

88. death is not punishment

id say if anything alot of these people pray for their demise.

sorry, but killing someone is giving them an easy out.

life behind bars stuck in a small room with nothing to do but think is punishment.

[Orsino]

91. Knowing the failure rate of American convictions...

...a large nuber of which turn out to be erroneous, you would favor the death penalty anyway? How many innocent lives are you willing to trade to satisfy, however wrongly, a victim's family member who wants "closure"? How many innocent people, newly released after years of wrongful imprisonment, do you wish had been executed instead?

*'s wars are bad enough. I can't support throwing lives away just to satisfy blood-lust.

[DemGa]

93. Well then, let's just keep right on killing

We've had it right all this time, just needed to "tweak" the system a bit. Carry on then.

[Evoman]

94. My grandpa had an interesting take on the death penalty.

He was of the opinion that if a murderer/rapist/etc was going to be killed under the death penalty, then either the family of the victim or the judge or the jury involved in that sentencing should have to kill the man themselves. Getting some professional to do something your reponsible for is abdicating your responsability for the man's fate.

If its revenge you want, do it. If you can look in a man's face, then kill him, do it. If you think it will help you, do it. Grandpa thinks that if you have to take a life, it has to be personal...you can't have some faceless entity do it. If you can't do it, then throw the guy in jail and go on living your life.

I'm not sure I agree with him...I'm anti-DP in all cases. But he sort of makes a point....

[flashl]

95. The Death Penalty is a lottery for the poor

"The death penalty is like a giant lottery. The only difference is someone dies. Of approximately 20,000 murders committed in the US every year, less than 1% result in the death penalty. They die not because their crimes are the most horrendous, but because they do not have the money and power to fight for their lives. Source"

What is the cause of death entry on an inmate's death certificate after a state sponsored murder? HOMICIDE.

Are millionaires deterred from committing murder because of the death penalty?

Yes? Search for Robert Durst. He killed his neighbor, chopped him up, and dumped his body parts in a Texas river. Yet, he walked.

[aikoaiko]

97. What's the difference between "revenge" and "justice"?

The terms overlap more than they don't. Both terms describe punishment for a wrong. The only difference is that the revenge seeker may gain some satisfaction from implementing the punishment.

Why is revenge such a bad thing when tempered by the law and due process?


Here are the entries for the terms from Dictionary.reference.com

re·venge
pronunciation verb, -venged, -veng·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit: He revenged his murdered brother.
2. to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; avenge: He revenged his brother's murder.
–verb (used without object)
3. to take revenge.
–noun
4. the act of revenging; retaliation for injuries or wrongs; vengeance.
5. something done in vengeance.
6. the desire to revenge; vindictiveness.
7. an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction.


—Related forms
re·venge·less, adjective
re·veng·er, noun
re·veng·ing·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. See avenge. 4. requital. Revenge, reprisal, retribution, vengeance suggest a punishment, or injury inflicted in return for one received. Revenge is the carrying out of a bitter desire to injure another for a wrong done to oneself or to those who are felt to be like oneself: to plot revenge. Reprisal, formerly any act of retaliation, is used specifically in warfare for retaliation upon the enemy for its (usually unlawful) actions: to make a raid in reprisal for one by the enemy. Retribution suggests just or deserved punishment, often without personal motives, for some evil done: a just retribution for wickedness. Vengeance is usually wrathful, vindictive, furious revenge: implacable vengeance.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
re·venge (rĭ-věnj') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. re·venged, re·veng·ing, re·veng·es

1. To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
2. To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.


n.

1. The act of taking vengeance for injuries or wrongs; retaliation.
2. Something done in vengeance; a retaliatory measure.
3. A desire for revenge; spite or vindictiveness.
4. An opportunity to retaliate, as by a return sports match after a defeat.



re·veng'er n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
revenge
1375, from O.Fr. revengier, from re-, intensive prefix, + vengier "take revenge," from L. vindicare "to lay claim to, avenge, punish" (see vindicate).

To avenge is “to get revenge” or “to take vengeance”; it suggests the administration of just punishment for a criminal or immoral act. Revenge seems to stress the idea of retaliation a bit more strongly and implies real hatred as its motivation. <"The Columbia Guide to Standard American English," 1993>

The noun is first recorded 1547.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
revenge

noun
1. action taken in return for an injury or offense

verb
1. take revenge for a perceived wrong; "He wants to avenge the murder of his brother"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
revenge1 noun
harm done to another person in return for harm which he has done (to oneself or to someone else)
Example: The man told the manager he would get/have his revenge / take revenge on the company for dismissing him; His revenge was to burn down the factory.

jus·tice /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9. (initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
—Idioms
10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
11. do justice,
a. to act or treat justly or fairly.
b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.


—Related forms
jus·tice·less, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
Jus·tice /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Donald, born 1925, U.S. poet.
2. a town in NE Illinois. 10,552.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
jus·tice (jŭs'tĭs) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.
1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
2. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
4. Law The administration and procedure of law.
5. A judge.
6. A justice of the peace.
3.
1. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
2. Law The administration and procedure of law.
3. A judge.
4. A justice of the peace.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law
1. A judge.
2. A justice of the peace.






The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
justice
1140, "the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment," from O.Fr. justise, from L. justitia "righteousness, equity," from justus "upright, just" (see just (adj.)). The O.Fr. word had widespread senses, including "uprightness, equity, vindication of right, court of justice, judge." The word began to be used in Eng. c.1200 as a title for a judicial officer. Meaning "the administration of law" is from 1303. Justice of the peace first attested 1320. In the Mercian hymns, L. justitia is glossed by O.E. rehtwisnisse.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
justice

noun
1. the quality of being just or fair
2. judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments
3. a public official authorized to decide questions brought before a court of justice
4. the United States federal department responsible for enforcing federal laws (including the enforcement of all civil rights legislation); created in 1870

[Tyler Durden]

145. You can post THAT, and see little difference?

I am very glad that you don't run things.

[RB TexLa]

98. I don't insert victims families into my support for the DP at all. I simply believe there are

crimes for which no amount of time in prison provides an adequate or a just punishment. No punishment is a deterrent to murder.

[flashl]

102. When do we seek 'justice'?

When people of color are killed in the inner city, when homeless people are killed, when the "nobodies" are killed, district attorneys do not seek to avenge their deaths. Black, Hispanic, or poor families who have a loved one murdered not only don't expect the district attorney's office to pursue the death penalty--which, of course, is both costly and time consuming--but are surprised when the case is prosecuted at all. -Sister Helen Prejean, CSJ

Do we seek vengeance/justice for 'white collar' crimes that effect hundreds, sometime thousands?

Why do we have difficulty labeling the action of HMOs who use the pen to issue a death sentence to their sick patients as murder when denying treatment? Are those psychopaths less threatening to millions in society?

The same level of 'sportsmanship' and 'spin' that some abhor as we witness politics is in play when it comes to the death penalty.

Numerous studies have repeated shown that minorities and the poor are subject to a different standard in our criminal justice system when this society seeks justice. Too many, are simply comfortable overlooking this fact.

[Bright Eyes]

103. So killing the murder is going to remove the pain?

Murder victim's families will NEVER be the same, whether the murderer is dead or in jail.

You make it sound like the death penalty is the ONLY option. Well its not.

[ieoeja]

104. Before DNA

Before DNA testing a bunch of Chicago cops tortured men into confessing which resulted in the death penalty. A large number of these were later proven innocent when DNA came along.


Now that we have DNA testing...

Cop: "We have to take a sample of your DNA to compare to that we found at the crime scene. Let me just rub this cotton swab inside your cheek."

Suspect: "Gladly! This will prove my innocence."

Cop: Leaves the room and wipes the cotton swab on items found at the crime scene.


If some cops were torturing men into confessing before DNA, what in the world would make you think some cops today are not doing what I just described above? DNA testing actually makes it EASIER for the cops to convincingly frame a criminal, not more difficult.

100% certainty is an impossible achievement.

[fujiyama]

107. There is little doubt that certain murderers DESERVE the death penalty

but as tempting as vengeance is (I believe the urge is almost instinctive), the system simply cannot be administered in a way that is fair. The death penalty (like many laws in an imperfect man-made system of governance) is applied in an incredibly capricious and arbitrary manner. That is inherent in the justice system, but when dealing with matters of life and death, it is better to err on the side of life.

For example, look at the racial disparities. I'm not even going to argue the greater likelihood of a black or hispanic person being on death row compared to a white person. I don't have the statistics with me or a link, but take a look at the disparities depending on the race of the VICTIM. A suspect is MUCH more likely to get the death penalty if the victim is white. That has been shown in hundreds of cases. Even though blacks are often victims of crime, very rarely is the suspect sentenced to death.

And considering the number of people over the years that have been on death row and cleared, it's obvious the system is broken - meaning that innocent people have likely been put to death. Also, while evidence gathering methods are sufficient enough to provide a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, it is never 100% reliable. The state should not be in business of killing based on the whims of anyone, especially when there is even the slightest chance of killing someone innocent.

That is why life in prison without the chance of parole is a preferred alternative. It is reversible. While someone released after many years of incarceration cannot gain those years back, at least he or she will have something left.

[NMMNG]

108. I oppose the DP

a) that already is a death sentence, but your sentencing them to die of old age, or whatever natural disease or prison-incident that might happen, instead of lethal injection or whatever method is used in your state.

It's not necessarily a death sentence as future evidence may exonerate them of the crime. Even if they do remain in jail for the remainder of their life, it's less barbaric than state-sanctioned murder.

(b) if you're keeping someone in jail for life without the possibility of parole, your essentially telling them that no matter how well they behave in prison, they're never getting out. so what's the incentive for being well-behaved. It increases the likelihood they'll injure or kill other inmates or corrections officers. what do they have to lose?

They have freedom of association with others (as well as other privileges) within the prison to lose. Offenders who prove more dangerous often end up in isolation where they are kept by themselves in a cell for 23 hours a day, and allowed out alone in a yard for one hour. This provides incentive to behave appropriately as isolation is very undesirable.

(c) It doesn't give closure to the families of those killed. It may not speak well to the nature of human beings, but revenge is a natural emotion. And if the families know that whoever killed their loved one is dead, they will, for the most part, feel justice has been served. It won't bring their loved one back. It probably won't make them feel any better. But it will bring a sense of closure. Not going to bed at night knowing that the person who killed your loved one is still alive, still breathing, still laughing and watching tv or reading a book. Basically doing the things your loved one can't do = don't underestimate that feeling of anger and resentment.

You're assuming that revenge is the only form of closure. Having the person in prison and away from society is closure enough IMO. In most prisons, particularly for violent offenders, it's not a country club. They're not sitting around watching 120 channels of cable TV, reading Shakespeare and having a grand old time despite what some like to think (not that they should be).



If we kill every murderer should we also rob every robber, beat everybody who commits an assault, rape every rapist, etc? Where does "an eye for an eye" end?

[poisonivy]

109. This specific topic is a hot button topic

for both sides of the debate. I also can see valid points on both sides of this debate, but, for every point there is usually a counter point that is just as poignant or specific in its main idea.

On the pro side the arguments I have seen posted, AND the ones I use myself to attempt to justify the DP are:

Families want closure and some cannot get that until the guilty party has paid the ultimate penalty for a crime.

When you put somebody in prison with no parole what you have is essentially an individual that feels they have nothing to lose so they become even worse in prison. This puts the Correctional Officers at risk, it puts other inmates at risk, and it also puts other prison employees at risk such as the medical staff.

If executed, there is ZERO chance that this individual will become a repeat offender.

Putting an individual in prison with no parole, AND to ensure the safety of others is placed in isolation for their entire prison term (life) can be considered cruel and unusual which is unconstitutional as an individual will literally go crazy with no other human contact.

On the other side of the coin the following arguments have been posed and I also agree with and use these to balance my pro opinions:

With all of the recent exonerations of individuals convicted 10-20 years ago due to DNA and other forensic testing that is now available, how many on death row really ARE innocent, and should we chance the execution of one more innocent just to justify the blood lust that some have in regards to executions?

Executions are nothing more than state sanctioned murder, thus making us no better than the killers themselves.


Overall, I feel that the dp IS justified in specific cases such as a serial killer or other psychopath that literally gets off by killing, but, that is a very small percentage of those given the death sentence as most are spur of the moment killings, and crimes such as this do not justify the use of the death penalty.

[Djinn]

153. How can you hold

these simultaneous views:

Families want closure and some cannot get that until the guilty party has paid the ultimate penalty for a crime.

&

he dp IS justified in specific cases such as a serial killer or other psychopath that literally gets off by killing, but, that is a very small percentage of those given the death sentence as most are spur of the moment killings, and crimes such as this do not justify the use of the death penalty.

So if my loved one is killed by a violent shit as a "spur of the moment thing" then my grief isn't as important as someone who's loved one is killed by someone who planned it??

[lonestarnot]

110. I respectfully disagree.

I think it is better for them to rot in the slammer.

[uppityperson]

111. Thank you for sharing all that.

There are lots of questions about the death penalty, and it just isn't easy. Death vs life in prison (some call that torture)? The chance of erroneous convictions is real also. Not easy, but thank you for sharing this.

[SammyWinstonJack]

112. The reason I don't support the death penalty is because of those who are wrongly convicted and

executed. That is the bottom line for me. Oh and because state sanctioned execution is murder. Murder is Murder no matter who is doing it. It's barbaric and I think we humans should by now, evolved beyond it.

on edit:
an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.


on edit: Maybe you should consider a new career? just sayin'

[malaise]

115. My favorite cousin was murdered in cold blood

and then as now I will not support the death penalty.

I'm sick of this fugging old testament vengeance being committed in my name anywhere on the planet. Keep on hating but leave me out of it please.

[SammyWinstonJack]

116. First so sorry for your loss and thank you for your convictions.

:-)

[malaise]

117. Twenty two years ago

and we never stop talking about him. And even though we miss him big time even now, not one member of his family ever discussed the death penalty. We never even went to court. That wasn't going to bring him back. We believe in life for fuck sake.

[SammyWinstonJack]

120. ....

:hug: for you and your family. He would probably have respected your decision. I can not imagine such a loss. Peace.

[malaise]

123. He was a pacifist who worked with the poor

He was a wonderful human being. He left a wife and two sons who were approaching college age.

[mitchum]

119. Mag Rat, I want to thank you for a post that was based on your actual experiences...

and reflection.
It is refreshing.
Thanks,
mitchum

[SammyWinstonJack]

121. Are you serious?

:wow:

[mitchum]

124. Absolutely serious...

most posts on this subject are usually of two reflexive theoretical variations:

"There are just some sonofabitches (usually child sex murderers) who DO deserve the death penalty"

or

"But I'm a Dem/liberal/progressive and as a Dem/liberal/progressive it is just wrong to support the death penalty!" There will often be a Gandhi quote nearby.

Am I very far off?


At least, one can see Magic Rat wrestling with this issue based on his experiences and reflection. You may not agree with his conclusions, but you can not assert that he arrived at his conclusion in a theoretical vacuum. And for that, I do applaud him.

[mitchum]

125. I remember that DU-er Padraig's parents were murdered and he remained adamantly anti-DP...

and if you couldn't trust his enlightenment and progressiveness...who could you trust?

[mitchum]

143. I notice that NO ONE is touching this...

I wonder why?

[Tyler Durden]

146. Because the Pro-DP crowd is more comfortable in the arena.

The lions are waiting, and the crowd is impatient.

Blood for blood until no more blood can flow.

I do not understand it either.

[PVnRT]

155. That's one experience. Magic Rat's is another.

If that's too much to deal with, sorry.

[mitchum]

160. It wasn't even one experience...Padraig was a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR...

who was booted from DU.
I was actually using his "heartfelt opposition" to the DP as a means to goad those who are giving Magic Rat such a hard time.
I actually approve of Magic Rat's post.
Sorry for the confusion.

[PVnRT]

164. Understood

/fades into the background...

[depakid]

127. Basically, you're advocating vengence and using emotion rather than reason

to formulate your opinion on policy.

Unfortunately, it's an all to American thing to do- and it's precisely this sort of process that's gotten the country into the strits it's in.

And will stay in for the foreseeable future.

[LynnTheDem]

131. Killing is wrong.

If ther eis a choice to kill or not to kill, then choosing to kill is wrong.

It's that simple.

I don't want my country to be in with the nations that sanction government killings. I want my country to be with the first-world progressive nations that do not sanction government killings.

Who would Jesus kill?

[Djinn]

133. Instituting the death penalty for rape is INSANE

If a rapist will likely be put to death if found guilty, and in many cases the victim is the only witness, then what does he/she have to lose by murdering their victim and reduing their chances of being convicted? It's not like they could be executed twice.

It also implies that being raped is akin to being killed. Way to support rape survivors there.

[alcibiades_mystery]

162. The punishment junkies never look at this side of the reasoning

They advocate 40+ years for armed robbery, not seeing that such punishment provides an incentive for murder (40 years, life, what's the difference?).

[WillyT]

135. Apparently, They Killed Something In You As Well !!!

Sorry.

[ConsAreLiars]

136. Sorry you are so hate-filled and murderous.

Must be hard to take those tales of evil incarnate, but to become one of them must be even worse. Get well.

[Hippo_Tron]

141. Half of the point of the justice system is to protect the accused and convicted from human nature

I don't fault a murder victim's family for wanting to see the killer put to death. I also wouldn't fault them if they wanted to do it themselves. It doesn't mean that the state should enact their will. The state's job is to protect society and the death penalty doesn't protect society.

The death penalty is part of a faulty mentality that the criminal justice system is designed to make people suffer. That is, IMO, one of the key reasons that we have such a high recidivism rate in this country.

As far as life in prison without parole basically being a death sentence, here's my view. I think that everybody, so long as they are mentally stable, should have the right to assisted suicide. I see no reason why prisoners should be denied that right.

[mdmc]

144. KILL EM ALL, LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!

Revenge uber alles!

[Elspeth]

151. Your post was powerful, Magic Rat, and it reminds us of how heinous crimes can destroy families

I can understand sympathizing with the families and wanting justice for them. And if you've got the right criminal who committed the crimes, I am with you on the death penalty for some of the more heinous: the rape and murder of children, the grandmother whose throat was cut ear to ear, etc.

What bothers me is that you sometimes get the wrong person and that wrong person gets convicted. With the death penalty, there is no going back and exonerating the innocent, ever. That's the sticking point for me.

But, if you've got the right person, the one who has raped and murdered a woman, a child, the man who has slaughtered people in their own homes, then I can understand administering a death penalty. But you have to make sure you've got the right person, and not some innocent bystander who got picked up on a fluke or on some bad information.

[JerseygirlCT]

154. Killing someone else won't bring their loved ones back

Nothing will.

It won't deter the next stupid or violent person from doing something stupid and violent.

Life without parole means no parole hearings. And we'll all die of old age or some disease. They simply do the rest of their living, and dying, away from the general population. As to behavior control, there are many options still left -- both rewards and punishments.

The victims you see have had horrible things happen to them, no doubt. Nothing will change that now. I can understand their desire for vengeance, but that's exactly why we have a legal system, not vigilante "justice". They get to feel angry and bloodthirsty, if need be -- we, as the people of the country, get to make a more moral and ethical choice.

[PVnRT]

156. An interesting read

But I see that the screaming idiots are here with "WHY DO YOU HATE EVERYONE OMGZ!!!!!" garbage instead of actually trying to discuss what you wrote. Probably should have just set up a blog rather than put it here.

[Perry Logan]

157. Unless you're God, you might have the wrong guy.

[Echo In Light]

158. I certainly can empathize with the grief stricken, but those emotions shouldn't...

Work to the state's advantage in wanting to carry out a biblical desire for vengeance.

I mean, like most, if it were my family member or friend in one of the above scenarios the poster outlined, of course I'd be overwhelmed with negative emotions and would want revenge ... and would likely attempt it on my own even. But I would still disagree with giving the govt that degree of authority.

[alcibiades_mystery]

161. Disagree

Morally wrong. That's it for me.

Now, you say "if it was my loved one" I'd feel the same way. This is almost certainly true. The mistake we make is in thinking that the justice system is in service to the victims. It is not. A justice system is put into place precisely to move the decisions out of the sphere of the victim-offender relationship. The so-called victim's rights movement has done more to harm the administration of justice in this country than anything else. I don't want a justice system that serves as a proxy for crime victims. At that point, you may as well just throw out jurisprudence tout court and go back to some primitive mob system.

[NoBorders]

163. Justice not about an emotional release/closure

for the relatives of victims. I realize of course how horrible it would be to lose someone in a viscious or horrible manner, and I would probably want to kill the perpatrator myself. But until we humans become omniscient and infallible we have no business executing people. And the law isn't meant to exact revenge.