I'm wondering how you guys view capital punishment. It's a hard decision for me to make, because one side of me tries to sympathise with the family and want to get the murderer back, but the other says no one has the right to decide someone's fate.

I favor capital punishment. I think it is a detterent to crime, but I think it should only be used in the most heinous of crimes. I also think there should be sufficient evidence available to confirm guilt such as DNA. This is coming from someone whos family has experienced a murder, so my view may be scewed.

I am for the death penality when it is a proven vile serial killer, but I don't believe in abusing it like Bush did when he was governor of Texas.

I'm for the death penalty when a REALLY brutal murder(all are brutal, but i mean REALLY) like a beheading occurs, or when more than one person is killed. Also, if a child is killed it should be used. I do not see it as a deterrent as much as a payback. It doesn't deter because a murderer thinks hes going to get away with it, no matter what the possible consequence may be. I also think more white people ought to get the death penalty because many people who get it are unproportionally black and less heinous crimes than many whites

They have shown repeatedly that capital punishment isn't a deterrent to serious crime. We're talking about true psychopaths in cases like that, and they don't think about consequences.

I do believe that your feelings about this are somewhat skewed by your experiences, Chris, but it's totally understandable. When you're the victim of a crime, whether directly or indirectly, you want justice, and the form that justice usually takes is wanting the perpetrator dead. No one could blame you for feeling that way. I've been the victim of much less serious crime than what you describe (house broken into and burglarized), and I swear, if I'd had a gun, I'd have blown the guy away.

But we all know what the problems are with capital punishment. Sometimes innocent people die. I also have a problem with state-sanctioned killing, especially because it usually doesn't happen until ten or more years after the crime.

Whenever I hear of a truly heinous crime, I feel as if the person should be put to death. But that's the emotional response. When I stand back and look at things more rationally, I feel differently.

Still, I know that if anyone ever caused physical or psychological harm to a member of my family, there'd be hell to pay.

I am not for Capital Punishment. Some of these murderers deserve more than death but it is not for the state to decide about who lives and who dies. Most countries have abolished it but I guess someone has to keep Iran and China company. In Iran they stone little girls who were raped and in China they decide one week they want to crack down on something and then start executing people.

I wonder when speaking out against the government here will start to be a Capital Offense.

It is difficult sometimes knowing what these people have done but someone, somehow needs to stop the cycle. If the state decides killing is not an option and humane treatment is a priority then perhaps it will be one step on the road to a better world. Its got to start somewhere.

:( As I sit and watch A & E (on this Friday 1:00P.M. a rare day off) about JOHN LENNON'S SENSELESS DEATH??? :(

Yea..........some need to be PUT OUT of our misery!!!

Have a nice day :) .............Andrew Paul

This is a tough call, I definetly feel a strong urge to kill some of these people myself, this I recognize as my animal bloodlust self. However as a society I feel we must evolve higher than the lowest common denominator in all of us. Too many innocent individuals have died by capital punishment as DNA tests have proven. This is my worst nightmare, can you imagine being on death row knowing there was a mistake and that you are innocent.
The current laws re: capital punishment are kind of ridiculous anyway, take Jeffrey Dahmer for example if there was ever a case screaming insanity this was one. If I remember correctly he was not given this option, instead he was found guilty of murder and put in a restroom with a person that had every motivation in the world to beat him to death which he promply did.

As I said earlier, the death penalty should only be used in the most heinous crimes such as what the guy in Florida recently done to that little girl and Scott Peterson or OJ Simpson. I just don't see how anyone could make a case to save such a sorry life. They knew full well what they were doing; and they should pay the utmost consequences.

That isn't to say that in every case there shouldn't be hard evidence; aka DNA or key witnesses. There shouldn't be any doubt while issuing the sentence of death.

I have to agree with Erin and Earthmother on this one. Like torture, the death penalty is a discredited and barbaric practise. Most every other democracy in the world has banned it because it has been proven to not be a deterent. Murder is simply wrong whether commited by an individual or by the state.

Also, once we allow the state to end our lives for whatever reason, we are placing the state in too high a position of power over us as individuals.

I disagree.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, yes in can be abused as we know as it has been in Texas and innocent people have died because of it.

But this is my question, what does society do with the Ted Bundys or Jeffrey Dahmars of the world ??? And lets not forget that 70 year old man rotting in a California prison, Charles Manson. These people are beyond hope, they could never be let back out into society, if they didn't kill again, they would be killed anyway. So what should be done with these dangerous killers, I sure as hell wouldn't want them as my neighbor or any like them.

So what is the answer???

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Study after study has shown that death penalty is no deterent. If it where than a state like Texas would have a very low murder rate while a state like New York (which hasn't executed anyone in over 30 years) would have a very high murder rate. But that is just not the case.

The logic of thinking the death penalty prevents crime ranks up there with thinking that arming all the students is a deterent to school shootings.

A criminal mad man breaks into your house and threatens your family, shoots one of your family members for example - then blow his head off. Everyone has the right to self defense.

BUT, it's my understanding that our legal system is based on protecting the innocent. And, all systems have a certain % of failure. So, no matter what, an innocent person will be put to death- if the death penalty is legal.

If the death penalty is not legal, then the innocent will not be put to death. And, true, that means the guilty will not be put to death.

What's better, knowing that an innocent person will not die, or that a guilty person will die?

The criminal you had to deal with will be put to death, but so will an innocent person be put to death- even if it's a failure that happens only 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 cases. Is one's sense of anger so great that it justifies the death of an innocent?

In a 'grand' sense I would think the death penalty is a bad idea ( I think of 'advanced' civilizations as not having the death penalty ).

There's a movie with Sussy Spacec that relates to this. I forgot what it's called... anyway, in the movie, her son is murdered and the murderer gets off pretty easily. Sussy and her husband in the movie literally lose their mind over and it ends where they kill the murderer.

I don't necessarily agree with their actions, but it shows that you literally lose your mind with a family member was murdered and the scumbag didn't get the same treatment.

Has anyone also seen the movie Face Off? In the beginning, an innocent kid is shot and killed by a sick, disgusting terrorist for no reason other than the kid's father being part of an anti-terrorism coalition. Now Josh, if that happened to your kid, would you feel one bit sorry if his killer got capital punishment?

Excellent point Grey Fox, -and thanks for the reply.
( your an AWESOME thinker! )

No doubt, I would like to see the sick, twisted, evil, rotten, sub-human maggot get devoured slowly in the belly of a Stars Wars 'pit monster.' And I'd pee down the hole on him! Shove Bush in too!

But, making decisions about the death penalty, - based on Hollywood movies is a bad idea.

In the case you mentioned, you bring up an 'absolute' - you know who did it, you have evidence beyond ALL doubt, you watched it with your own eyes, there is NO DOUBT, NONE, -and acting in Self Defense could easily be argued as the reason the bad guy was killed.

But, if I say, " Death Penalty!" Then what about when the innocent ( for example ) 17 year old son of yours- that didn't commit any crime, gets put to death?

ALL systems have failure, especially legal systems that can be abused by the Federal Government. So, how would you feel knowing that to satisfy your rage, an innocent person will die. Your criminal attacker will die, but then so will an innocent person.

What would you most want your legal system to based on;
RAGE, ANGER, and VENGEANCE, or the protecting of the innocent?

No doubt, there are examples where 'absolutes' do exist- and when you see those sick bastards commit those acts of unthinkable evil, I'd feel no pain in seeing them ripped in half. When it comes to protecting children, I feel even 10 times stronger about it.

RAGE and ANGER do not make a good platform to start your legal system on.

The movie with Sissy Spacek was called In the Bedroom. It was one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen.

We can argue about whether it is a deterent or not all night long. There are statistics that show favorably to both sides. However, a more accurate question is, what good does it do to keep the scum of the Earth alive, such as the guy in Florida or Scott Peterson? The death penalty should only be used in cases such as those. You can say it is barbaric, but some people say that what is happening to Terri Schavio and abortion is barbaric. In my opinion there is a little hypocrisy from you guys. I am sure you could make a better case for saving a fetus or a vegatative woman rather than a evil felon. If you are pro life all the way fine. But if you support a woman's right to choose, a right to die, ect. then the death penalty falls in line with those issues in my opinion. I just don't see how you could be pro choice, in favor of a right to die and then digress against putting felons proven guilty of heinous crimes die for their actions.

By the way....good discussion going here. I am sure we are all learning something from each other. I respect each one of your opinions, but I will also call you out on something when I see fit. Nothing personal! :)

Line after line in the post made me laugh my ass off. :lol: :good: :clap:

Yes, very funny, but Josh you should have said, "I'd shove Bush down the hole and than pee on them both." :)

Sorry Chris but every credible study shows that the death penalty is not a deterent.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/092200-01.htm And it is not only on a state basis but by country as well. Nations such as Canada and Great Britain have seen their murder rates decrease despite having abolished the death penalty.

But who is to judge who is scum of the Earth and who is not? As the President's favorite philosopher once said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone". John 8:7

You're trying to draw moral equivalance where none really exists. As a Catholic, I personally don't believe in abortion. But I also believe that that is my personal moral belief and it is not my place to impose my personal moral beliefs on others. The same can be said of right to die cases.

The death penalty on the other hand is the government murdering someone in my name against my moral beliefs. That is something very different. I also think that no people can truely be free as long as they give the state the power of life & death over them.

THANK YOU Chris, Grey Fox, and ALGOREismylife ! :clap:

VERY well said JamesAquila! When the State has power over life and death, -it will get abused.

You're right ALGOREismylife- Shove Bush in & THEN pee on them both!! :D

Chris, EXCELLENT points, I take no insult by your post ( ever ), -you are an AWESOME person to put forth your points so respectfully. Thank You, and more power to you :) ! I also DIG the GSC sense of humor!!! ( Thank You! )

My position on Pro Life / Pro Choice; I am SOOOOO PRO CHOICE. Why? Number 1; WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS Number 2: WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS Number 3: WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, etc. Number 3,257: MEN, DON'T TELL, OR FORCE WOMEN WHAT TO DO!
-dat' body and soul belong to da' woman!! Her Body, Her CHOICE!!!
( Right, that's for a different thread :) )

Chris, you said, "if you support a woman's right to choose, a right to die, etc. then the death penalty falls in line with those issues in my opinion. "
Yup, I don't disagree ( I mean, -I hope/think I can see it from your point of view). But... :)

I'm not arguing an 'Err on the side of life' Bush crap, or that the Death Penalty is a deterrent. I'm saying it's a choice. If you decide that the death penalty goes, then innocent people will die- no way around it. It's a balance, and you have to be willing to see the trade-off.

If you want to make absolutely certain that NO innocent person shall be put to death, then NO death penalty.

That is COMPLETELY different than supporting Pro-Life. I see Pro-Life as the FORCING of some other ( MALE ) religious belief on a woman. Completely taking away her RIGHTS over her body, and crushing whatever religious beliefs/faith she might have. I suppose comparison's between a fetus and a grown, crazed killer, could be made- but that's a stretch to me.

I would guess a stronger argument against not having the death penalty is- ( using my argument against myself here ) ALL systems have a certain % failure. So, if you don't kill the scum bag, he'll escape and kill LOTS of innocent people ( or he will kill some innocent person in jail with him). How many times has that happened? I'm crushed when I hear the stories of the killer that escapes and takes the life of a child ( I hope for those sub-humans that hell keeps a special place burning for them ).

So, if you want to make 100% certain that the killers will NEVER kill again, kill them ( or maybe cut off their arms, legs, nuts, and pull their teeth out :) ).

There is an important difference. One is the State killing you, the other is a crazed mad man. We will never be able to stop ALL of the crazy, killer, mad men, but we can stop the State from possibly killing* an innocent person.

(*Terri is NOT being killed / murdered / tortured / etc. )

I haven't really seen any statistics supporting that it's a deterrent...

My main reason for being against the death penalty, isn't because I don't think killers should be kept alive, but because of the chance of errors. Only when a Federal government system can carry something out perfectly (which is never) is when I'd be okay with the government putting people to death. Until then, I don't see how people could be for something that inevitable will kill innocent people.

About the death penalty being used only in cases where it's absolutely obvious the person on trial commited the crime, that's what court is for, the prosecutor is supposed to prove the person did it "beyond a reasonable doubt". And undoubtedly there have been innocent people put in jail and killed, even though the jury thought the evidence proved the person on trial did it "beyond a reasonable doubt".

If someone harmed or killed a family member of mine, there's no doubt that honestly I'd want blood, but there's no government system that's going to get it right 100% of the time. As long as that government system operates, innocent people will be killed.

By the way, I love how the conversation's going. Kudos everyone. :)

http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DezRubShepDeterFinal.pdf

... and, I guess, now I have :)

when I got to the 2nd page though, I came across something that seemed a little - abnormal - but I guess this is what happens with statistics:

"Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders - with a margin of error of plus or minus 10. Test show that results are not driven by tougher sentencing laws, and are also robust ot many alternative specifications."

I guess that's just the nature of statistics though.

This study is a load of crap. First, it is clear from the beginning that the authors are setting out to prove the theory of deterence. Then to do so they use a bunch of strange statistical formulas. I could use statistical formulas to prove everyone here is a rabid Bush supporter.

The only straight evidence they present is the chart on murder rates in non-death penalty states vs. death penalty states. Not only is the info there false (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/092200-01.htm) but the chart is not sourced (usually the first sign of bogus data).

Read this document which pulls this study and others apart http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FaganTestimony.pdf as well as http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=1176
http://preprints.stat.ucla.edu/396/JELS.pap.pdf
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167

See James, I told you we could both argue this side of capitol of punishment all day. Every study I can pull up that sides with me, you will dismiss as not being credible. Thus, I think we should move on to the real questions of the death penalty.

Heh, heh.

Here's a real question regarding the Death Penalty;

How much would it be worth, if instead of using the Death Penalty we actually discovered a way to rehabilitate ( "cure" ) those killers? Then, even when the system fails, and an innocent is about to be killed, -instead he would be 'cured.'

If instead of killing them, we devote the time and money into research that could help prevent these monsters from killing in the first place. Use them in ground-breaking 'fish-bowl' research on; where did these monsters come from, what 'garden' allowed them to grow? How can we reduce the conditions that lead to these killers? How do they kill? Why? How can we teach our kids to better protect themselves from these killers?

The nutty side of my brain; -if I were an alien, ET :) , and I was watching these primates evolve on Earth, I would be very impressed they day I saw them stop killing each other. I would think, "hhmmm .. they have evolved."

----------------
( p.s. someone once said, "Thou Shall Not Kill" )

The problem, Josh, is that criminals have an incredibly high recidivism rate. Even when they've gone through years of rehab and therapy, they still, unfortunately, often become repeat offenders. Some, of course, don't, but you have to wonder then if those were the ones who maybe got caught up in the crime but didn't have truly criminal minds. The true psycho- and sociopaths of the world are very difficult to rehabilitate. And how do you know which ones are which? Most people on death row are there for truly horrible crimes. I imagine some of them could probably be brought back into society to live crime free. But how do you know? And are we willing to risk having these people living amongst us to possibly commit more crimes? So what's the answer, then . . . lock them up and throw away the key? It's a really complex issue, and I have yet to see a good answer.

I would be against the death penalty not to protect the guilty scumbags so much as to protect the innocent that would undoubtedly be executed with capital punishment. There can be no perfect system re: the death penalty because there are no perfect humans. If we are going to use movies in this discussion, has anyone seen "The Green Mile"?, although it is partial fantasy, it also has profound truths in it concerning the execution of innocents. If you want to look at a much stricter law how about the Islamic law practiced in many parts of the Middle East? They cut people's heads off for far less than murder, they chop their hands off for theft, and yet this still does not stop crime over there.

That's the main argument against it.

And The Green Mile was incredibly powerful. Unfortunately, those who are currently running around spewing all this talk about erring on the side of life in the Schiavo case won't budge off their stand on the death penalty. Apparently they don't see anything wrong with occasionally killing a perfectly innocent person. And they call us murderers. <_<

Well said Uncle Joe,

And, I agree Earth Mother, -rehab fails = innocents get murdered = never worth it.

But, part of the question ( 'cause you are right Earth Mother, this is an ENORMOUS issue, there is no one 'good' answer that covers all of this ) that I was aiming at is, Hope.
Research would be a part of that hope. It's hard to study, learn and improve the 'environment' once the subject is dead, especially if the subject was actually innocent.
No doubt, once the subject is dead, the 'environment' is safer ( well, it's not for the innocent mistakenly in as guilty, but... ).
The research of today is a big improvement from what it was in the Dark Ages, I think that research will continue to improve, & that one day we might have the hope that the Death Penalty will not be needed ( otherwise, give up on the research? ).

-----------------
"Apparently they don't see anything wrong with occasionally killing a perfectly innocent person." VERY WELL said Earth Mother! Those 'tough cowboys,' proud of who? Bush....

As far as the guilty scumbags are concerned, let them rot in prison, life without parole. This way they could not be released in to society to do more harm to anyone. This also leaves the option open that just in case evidence turns up that proves one of them to be innocent such as DNA or some other compelling evidence justice can be corrected. Execution permanently closes the door and in fact makes society a murderer.

EM is right. I am for rehabing all criminals, but many, many fail. Just as the child molestor in Florida that was inprisioned and then was so called "rehabilitated". Just weeks ago, he kidnapped, raped, and killed a 9 year old girl. That happens to often; so as much as I would like to see us help criminals, I don't see it doing too much. I firmly believe it is just imbeded in some folks brains; just like homosexuality for instance.

Second, I don't buy the idea of doing away with the death penalty just because someone "might" be innocent. Does that mean we do away with prision because some people are imprisioned unfairly? No because the ends justify the means. This system should only be used in the rarest of cases; but it should be an option. I also don't buy someone can't be 100% guilty. If there is DNA, confession, witnesses, or any other type of overwhelming evidence to link you as the main person in a heinous crime, you should be punished, and the death penalty should be an option for the state to use.

If we continue with the death penalty, there is no "might" to it, innocents will be executed. One reason the Republican Governor of Illinois stopped executions there was because there were so many men on death row unjustly. It is usually the poor or minorities that cannot afford decent representation. I have heard of cases were the public defender with virtually no experience slept through the trial. If you are mentally or emotionally weak, under enough pressure you can be convinced to admit to a crime that you did not commit. Whenever there is a violent crime the police are under great pressure to produce results. I remember the bomb explosion in Atlanta that killed one woman prior to the Olympics, the police and FBI all but accused and the media castigated the hero that warned people away from the suspiscious package, later they apologized, good thing he had not been executed it would not have done him much good.
With prison some people may be incarerated unfairly, but there is allways the possiblity that justice may be corrected, with the death penalty there is no such thing. As far as I am concerned rehab only goes so far, it is not for murderers or child abusers, they can stay in prison without the possibility of parole.

No one is saying the death penalty doesn't have flaws, but again, there are ways to make sure 100% that no innocent person should be killed wrongly. As I have said, this should be used rarely, only for the scum of the Earth, and there must be OVERWHELMING evidence that incriminates that person without any questions.

But unfortunately it doesn't always work that way . . .

Life is not perfect; does that mean we do away with every single thing that does not have a 100% rate. What we have to do is have a government commission do a comprehensive study and find where all the flaws lie and then issue a national taskforce for each state to admend those flaws (the death penalty would not be viable during the time of mending).

Well when you cite a study that uses unsourced false data to prove its point, I will question its creditbility.

The problem with that study is that the authors didn't approach the subject objectively. They set out to prove the death penalty was a deterent. Thus they had to rely on bogus facts and other intelectually dishonest methods.

The truth is simple and they knew it and you don't need bizarre statistacal formulas to prove it. States with the death penalty have higher murder rate than those without.

Additionally, According to the FBI's Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002, the murder rate in the South increased by 2.1% while the murder rate in the Northeast decreased by almost 5%. The South accounts for 82% of all executions since 1976; the Northeast accounts for less than 1%. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf

Data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States, which retains the death penalty, has a murder rate that is more than three times that of many of its European allies that have banned capital punishment. (New York Times, May 11, 2002). The data challenges the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. There are more than 110 nations around the world that have banned the death penalty in law or practice.

These are straight verifiable facts that can't be disputed. And there is an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167 none of which relies on bizarre statistacal formulas.

This is the problem with most conservative positions whether the death penalty or Social Security. The straight facts just don't support their arguments. So they have to rely on obsfucation and outright falsehoods ala FAUX News. Remember, Bush accusing Gore of using 'fuzzy math'? Well we all know that he was the one who's math was fuzzy.

James, that report I posted had sources that backed up their assertions.