The Death Penalty

What's your opinion on government sanctioned executions? Are you for it in some cases and not in others or are you against it completely? Is killing people for killing other people an ethical paradox?

 

The PBS program called Now http://www.pbs.org/now/ ran a report on Friday night about the death penalty. Basically it showed a case from more than a decade ago where an innocent man was put to death by the state of Texas, then they showed an innocent man who is currently on the Texas death row. Many many innocent people have died this way and this will continue into the foreseeable future. It seems to me that a govt looses quite a bit of credibility by doing this (especially in minority communities). As for guilty people (and there MIGHT be a few on death row) I would like to see a serious attempt at rehab.

It is entirely likely that more innocent Americans have died of wrongful execution than those who have died of terrorism.

 

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but I also don't believe it is unfair or wrong. My preference would be for life without parole unless the murderer is so violent and dangerous that he/she is an uncontrollable threat to the prison guards and everyone else around him/her. While it is almost a sure thing that an innocent person has been executed somewhere at some time, I totally disagree with Danr that is is common, TV [even PBS] is not a credible source of information about who is innocent or guilty, and I seriously doubt that rehab is possible except in very unusual circumstances. But locking convicted murders away forever seems sufficient in a civilized society.

 

I believe that John McAdams fairly well sums it up when he said, "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science

 

I think that one of the best things about the death penalty is the closure so I say leave it up to the family. Either life in prison and it has to mean life or a family member gets the chance to pull the trigger.

 

I was a juror on a death penalty option case (Charles Russell Rhines) in South Dakota and he ended up convicted and sentenced to death...

Bone

 

I am in favor of the death penalty. As stated above, very few innocent people end up being executed, the media of course, makes all isolated incidents into thousands of unjust events.

 

In Illinois some students proved that many who were on death row were innocent, since then they have stopped the death penalty there. This is not tv bias it is simply a fact.

 

Wow, I bet it was a tough duty.

 

Especially at the very end with all the attorneys and reporters in the courtroom and each of us had to stand, face him, and say "I find you guilty and sentence you to death." Some found it difficult and mumbled their words.

But he was caught red-handed and took a life with no remorse for a sack full of change. He earned it...

Bone

 

I can't think of any worse support for an opinion than "some students proved" it. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

 

"We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death," Ryan told CNN. "There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied."
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/

That is a quote from a CNN story about it. You may not be familiar with the case but the students PROVED the innocence of these 13 people (DNA) to the point that they had to let them go. That accounts for MORE THAN ONE HALF of the people on IL death row. The IL death row is what could be called a RANDOM SAMPLE which means that more than one half on death row nationally are innocent.

not to funny

 

The key word Dan is "if." My understanding is that it's pretty much been established that the death penalty has zero deterrent effect on crimes of passion such as murder. In fact, there is some weak evidence that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without, but it is unclear whether there is a causal effect or if the states adopted the death penalty due to the murder problem in the first place. I'm not comfortable giving the state that sort of power without some corresponding benefit that is yet to be established to exist. The opinion of a college poli-sci professor just doesn't make the grade.

But I'll make a fearless forecast -- nothing posted in Coin Talk is going to change anyone's strongly held opinion on this subject. People like arguing political subjects because it only requires an opinion. No facts, reasoning, intelligence, or knowledge is required on any subject to participate. encil:

 

I think it's something I'd have to consider on a case to case basis. I'm for the death penalty sometimes, and against it in other times. A recent example of what I was in nuclear support of was the execution of the scumbag known as Tookie Williams.

 

Tookie was guilty and yes he was a scumbag. If you are going to do this thing it should be to guys like him.

 

Why even ask the question, is this an example of how soft as a nation we have become.

 

I guess I can opt in here with my always anticipated opinion. LOL!

For me, it comes down to one question; and it's not, does the death penalty deter crime, does the justice system really work and is it fair? And it's not the always head befuddling question, "What if it were someone you knew"? No, I think it comes down to the question, "Do you really want your government, these geniuses we elect, to be in the business of putting certain members of society to death"? I saw a poll today that said 3/4 of the country think that the members of both parties are equally corrupt. Yet we trust them with our lives in legal matters.

What happens in the future when some business organization lobbies congress to extend the death penalty to people who knowingly spread Aids, or have abortions, or sell a product that they knew caused cancer, or market a medication that has lethal consequences, because in doing so, it would increase their profits by so many percent? If you think that is far-fetched, look at the tobacco industry and its efforts to keep secret the health effects of its products and how much lobbying money it pours into keeping them legal in spite of the enormous health costs smoking causes this nation. Then tell me this couldn't happen.

There are people in all societies that will maliciously or unintentionally kill others and that will never change no matter what laws we pass. There are out and out psychopaths who can't tell the difference between right and wrong that no law will stop. We all agree that murder is wrong and that we have to find a way to handle those who commit it. It seems to me that allowing the government to put people to death only creates another problem and a death-tolerant environment with the potential to proliferate into other types of crime. That is why I am opposed to the death penalty.

 

I like how Terry Pratchett puts it, in his book "Going Postal:

Here's an unarguable statistic on the deterrent value of exexutions: 0% of all executed criminals have comitted more crimes after their execution (compare that to relapse rathe of 83% of criminals who after serving sentences, end up back in jail for committing more crimes. Not that I support the death penalty for any crime short of murder.). To me the whole idea of death sentences, or even of regular prison sentences, is not to deter others from comitting crimes but to take criminals who have comitted crimes out of circulation. Few criminals commit crimes while in prison and no executed criminals continue to commit crimes. That's simple math. Detterence is a nice fringe benefit, as the more likely it seems to someone that they will be caught and punished for a crime, the less likely they are to attempt to commit it, moral and ethical questions aside... however I don't think that should be the main purpose. As I see it, the purposes of jail sentences and execution are punishment, taking criminals out of circulation, and deterrence, in that order. Rehabilitation would be nice but looking at the relapse rate of criminals it seems terribly unrealistic, and to me comes as a distant fourth (and obviously in the case of executions rehabilitation is no longer an issue).

The only qualms I have about the death penalty is the risk of executing innocent people, but that's what the appeals process is for. After someone is sentenced to death, and a reasonable amount of appeals (say, 3) have gone by to allosw for new evidence or testimony, the sentence should be carried out.

Detterent or not, the death penalty sends a clear message that they are crimes that our society finds so intolerable that we will impose the ultimate penalty for them. I find it hypocritical to the extreme for those who call it barbaric for the state to take away a human life... from someone convicted of taking others. I hate making judgement calls on the value of one human's life over another's... but I wouldn't have much problem saying an innocent victim had more right to their life than the person who killed him or her.

 

This is a perfect example of how to lie using statistics. Samuel Clemmons said that there are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statisics. If only 100% of all execusions resulted in the death of the person that actually committed the crime we'd have something. Rememeber, it is said that it is better to let a 1000 guilty people go than to convict one that is innocent.

I think you're right that we need to take the bad guys out of circulation and make the rest of their lives as miserable as possible. The idea of reform is usually a joke at best. We don't even attempt that in any real way.

 

100% of those who were guilty of the crimes they were executed for ceased to commit crimes. That is unarguable. I obviously don't favor executing innocent people, but as I said in my post if you had bothered to read further, that's what the appeals process is for. As for your saying, I'm sure the friends and family of those killed by guilty people allowed to go free wouldn't be likely to agree. Our legal system isn't perfect, but the wrongfully convicted have more recourse in our system than in any other country in the world.

I have a better saying for you... it is better for an innocent person to go to prison, prove his innocence and be released, than it is to let a guilty person run around free and continue to kill people.

Reform is a real recent idea, from the same people that believe that people who commit crimes do so because they are victims of poverty and social injustice, rather than because they have moral and ethical defects that make them inclined to criminal behavior. I don't deny that some criminals comitted crimes out of desperation, but I storngly doubt they make up the majority of criminals by a long shot.