Death penalty

K

KodiakCoastie

Inactive
So Today at work one of the guys I work with started talking about the death penalty and how it should be abolished. His argument was that since their have been pearsons who have been proven inocent years later that no one should ever be put to death. I countered and used his own argument and said with that sort of logic than why have any one in jail at all or ever punished because they might be proven not guilty at a later time. well he did not get it and thought my opinion was for no jails or punishments his brain could not figure out that I was using his lame argument and showing how ridiculas it was. I have noticed this more and more often a lot of people dont know how to debate and cant grasp argument reversal. No mater how many times I tried to explain it to this guy he did not understand this simple debate tactic and thought I was purposing the very Idea I was pointing out to be foolish. Am I the only one that experiences this? Also what are your views on this argument?
 
I countered and used his own argument and said with that sort of logic than why have any one in jail at all or ever punished because they might be proven not guilty at a later time.
Click to expand...

The difference is that you can get somebody out of jail and compensate them for the time lost. You can't get someone out of a graveyard.

I'm not too hot on the death penalty. That's not because I don't believe some crimes to be worthy of death, but rather because I don't trust the State to mete out and administer that kind of irreversible punishment in the fair and even-handed manner that's required. I don't want to put the power of lethal punishment into the hands of people who can't even keep the names on their no-fly lists straight.
 
I was probably more in favor of the death penalty until a few miles down the road Mike Nifong proved the extent to which justice can be corrupted by politics,racism,ambition and of course stupidity.
 
The difference is that you can get somebody out of jail and compensate them for the time lost. You can't get someone out of a graveyard.
Click to expand...

Well that's all relative, isn't it? What about those two mob soldiers that were set up by the FBI and released recently? They're old, really old (didn't one of them die?). No amount of compensation is gonna make up for spending the prime years of your life in jail, clutching the bar of soap oh so tight - but not so tight it pops right out of your hands..

The notion of "compensation" just irks me, I guess. If our justice system was and is super awesome, there wouldn't have to be a Plan B: fat lawsuit.

What if the justice system was perfect and infallible? Would you still support the death penalty then?

The argument of, "well once in a while a poor soul bites the dust, but the system in general is as good as it gets, and serves as a great deterrent" is a John Stuart Mill utilitarianism heap of bunk. And I think that, "what if you give the wrong guy the needle" is not really an argument against the death penalty, it's against the justice system itself. Hence,

No mater how many times I tried to explain it to this guy he did not understand this simple debate tactic and thought I was purposing the very Idea I was pointing out to be foolish.
Click to expand...

Not every argument comes down to rationality. I've never really felt that issues regarding the death penalty fits in any logical discourse. It's more about your own ethics and morales. Not to offer as proof, but if you try searching for "death penalty" threads on TFL, don't get surprised to see just how many of them get locked - the arguments almost always get emotional and passionate... what logic?
 
Zerojunk has a meaningful statement if ever one. up my way in NC one of the state's most infamous murders occured, turns out a cop's brother did it (never charged) I was a suspect for I'm convinced myself political reasons. I would not squirt piss on the cops and prosecutors if their asses was on fire.
 
I'd like to see the death penalty expanded and carried out quicker. Would be nice if innocent people didn't ever die, but that's just not the Real World in which we live.

Not having the death penalty would risk a lot more innocent lives than would be represented by the infinitesimal number of innocent people executed.
 
That equation only looks good as long as it's not you or one of your family on Death Row by mistake or prosecutorial misconduct.
 
I am glad Alleykat is not the Amerikan Diktator.

Application of the death penalty is so rare and so long delayed as to not constitute any real deterrent to the criminal mind. The risk of executing an innocent man is real. Costs of the years of appeals is probably greater than just locking somebody up.

Not that I do not think there are untold heinous criminals unhung, it is that we are not getting them all and we are not getting them fairly, which latter is the (supposed) basis of our legal system.

Now, grant me a science fictional means of accurately determining guilt, and I wll gladly see a lot of unsavory sorts off to the gallows... or the transplant clinic. But we do not have Lensmen, pentabarb, or the polyencephalographic veridicator. Also a pity that we do not have isolated unsettled areas - or planets - for penal colonies, where the crooks can be sent to root hog or die on their own. That worked for a while in places like Georgia and Australia.
 
If anyone thinks the death penalty should be abolished, show them this article from just today:

Robbery Suspects Kill Infant Execution-Style, Seconds After Killing Boy's Father

SACRAMENTO (FOX) — Seconds after killing a 21-year-old father during a suspected home-invasion robbery on Friday, two suspects fired a bullet into the head of the man's 7-month-old son who was seated in a car seat, police said this weekend as they released new details on the case.
Click to expand...
 
Argument from Emotion.

Do they deserve the death penalty? Absolutely. I'd gladly push the plunger on their syringes myself.

Is it wise to make public policy decisions on the basis of emotions? Absolutely not.

Justice and revenge are two different things. Not too long ago, people were strung from trees because people felt very strongly about black men being seen with white women, for example.

It's not the concept of the death penalty that I find objectionable--putting down a rabid dog is a necessity--but rather the inconsistent way in which it is meted out. Lots of guilty folks have walked the plank, but also lots of innocents. If you attach political gain ("tough on crime, vote for me!") or social standing to getting enough of the "right people" on Death Row, there's always lots of incentive for convictions at all cost. Look at Nifong...that wasn't a capital case, but it very well could have been, and there are probably more Mike Nifongs out there who don't give a rat's ass about whether they got the right man as long as somebody walks the plank to make the prosecutor look tough on crime.
 
I'm with Marko and Jim on this one.

Should there be a death penalty? Absolutely.

Where I draw the line are cases where only circumstantial evidence exists. I want credible witnesses, not some jailhouse bum who claims the accused "confessed" late some night. Or I want to see a confession by the accused that's verified by the evidence.

O.J. is in the news again (groan) and while I'm sure lots of folks think "he got away with it", I also think the prosecution's case leaked like a sieve and the jury returned a proper verdict (based on the trial).

There used to be an old adage, attributed to Ben Franklin, that said "Better a hundred guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man." I think we have forgotten this in our quest for justice.
 
My initial gut feeling is in favour of the death penalty.
However: consider the following:
What's worse: life in jail without the possibilty of parole,
Or: somewhere, with all due respect, of which we do not know much about, because to date no mortal human being has ever returned from the place.
Or: If you are into another frequency, the risk of an early start to a new life?

The only snag in this system is a potential weak kneed politician who will grant a pardon after so many years.
On the plus side, if the verdict turns out to be an error, it can be corrected.
 
That equation only looks good as long as it's not you or one of your family on Death Row by mistake or prosecutorial misconduct.
Click to expand...

Goes both ways; it's easier to say this when you aren't the one losing a family member because somebody was eventually let out of prison that should have instead been put down.

Though ultimately I come down on the same side as you do.

There used to be an old adage, attributed to Ben Franklin, that said "Better a hundred guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man." I think we have forgotten this in our quest for justice.
Click to expand...

I think largely we've forgotten this due to fear. People have this sense, partly aided by the media (news and entertainment), that they could be raped or murdered anytime they leave their house. Or that any day now their kids could be abducted and subjected to a long an unpleasant death. Which, while technically true, is highly unlikely to actually happen.

If it could be dispensed accurately and fairly, I have no problem with the actual idea of the death penalty. I'll not shed a single tear for a vast majority of the scumbags that we currently put to death, and you'll not see me sitting outside with candles calling it "state sponsored murder." Because in the vast majority of cases where the recipient is actually guilty, it isn't.

I just think that until we can do it accurately and fairly (which will likely never happen) the interests of justice require that we abstain.

So yeah, I agree with the whole "better a hundred guilty men go free" philosophy. And it's not just academic for me; somebody I care about had to watch their rapist go free due to lack of evidence...which, while horrible, is the only thing protecting others from being wrongfully convicted.

The only snag in this system is a potential weak kneed politician who will grant a pardon after so many years.
Click to expand...

True, but how often does this actually happen? Specifically regarding violent criminals, rather than the white-collar variety with friends in politics. How often do people serving life without parole for a crime that could theoretically have earned the death penalty get pardoned?
 
If life imprisonment was truly life imprisonment perhaps the number of death penalty advocates would be less.

I don't believe the death penalty is a deterent but it is societys revenge to grusome crimes. Even justifiable in the most heinious ones perhaps.
 
I support the death penalty generally. But, I am also conflicted with myself whether or not it is right. By punishing a murderer, we will kill them? That is kind of hypocritical. But, I support it. UGH...it is a hard thing I guess. Death is never easy, no matter what the situation.

However, the way the courts go now, there are so many appeals when it comes to a death sentence, it is usually years and years before the death penalty is ultimately followed through with. There is generally ample time to prove themselves innocent by the time the time comes for them to visit the room with the bed and a wall of glass. So, his argument is hard to support. Were I to be 100% anti-capital punishment...I would argue more the fact that "Isn't capital punishment technically premeditated murder? The same crime we generally send people to their death for committing themselves?"

I believe it is a necessity, but it is hypocritical, IMO.
 
I don't believe the death penalty is a deterent but it is societys revenge to grusome crimes. Even justifiable in the most heinious ones perhaps.
Click to expand...

I disagree with calling it "revenge". We live by laws which we, as mankind, create to control ourselves from doing harm to others. We implement punishments for violating those laws. In some cases that means no freedom for a period of time. In other cases and countries it can mean losing a hand, an arm or your life. Some laws dictate you lose your freedom for 5-10 years for robbery and you lose your voice in government elections. Other laws/other places may dictate you lose a hand or arm for it.

If you kill a person, a society has two viable methods of punishment. The first is to take killers, deprive them of their freedoms and quarantine them away from law abiding people. This could be prisons, a penal colony or some other form. The second is to deprive them of their life which is a permanent solution.

I dislike the use of capital punishment for "special circumstances" such as killing a policeman or some government official. Either the taking of a life is worth capital punishment or it isn't, based on the merits of the case. This is why there are "degrees" of homicide. The person who kills in a blind rage or "in the heat of passion" is often punished less severely than the methodical killer.

Some cases exhibit such extreme cruelty that we can't even allude to them here. Some, like the one ManedWolf posted go beyond any rationalization. In these cases, the perpetrator has declared they have no regard for any rules and prefer to live as animals do. And like a rabid animal, they need to be killed.

The basic argument is not should we have a death penalty, but how can it be implemented without killing an innocent person? Being human with human flaws, we cannot guarantee 100% accuracy, so what becomes acceptable?
 
I'm not too hot on the death penalty. That's not because I don't believe some crimes to be worthy of death, but rather because I don't trust the State to mete out and administer that kind of irreversible punishment in the fair and even-handed manner that's required.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement. On the surface, it seems like the death penalty is perfectly sensible, but on further investigation, it isn't so clean cut. People with lots of money and influence don't often get sentenced to death in America, while those with poor legal representation do. Just look at the OJ case, for example.

Another thing that really bothers me about how the death penalty works in the US is that states vary so much. Jeffrey Dahmer, a perfect candidate for the death penalty if there ever was one, got convicted in a state with no death penalty, so got life in prison. Had he done the same crimes in Texas, for example, he would certainly been sentenced to death. It makes no sense, IMO. Killing and eating people shouldn't be worthy of death in some states but not others.

When it comes down to it, I just plain don't like my government killing its citizens, and don't trust them to do it fairly. If the prisons weren't so full of non-violent offenders (like drug users, etc.) there would be room for murderers.
 
I heard a presentation by law enforcement officers at a criminology conference on a significant number of departments who clear cases with innocent defendants through questionable means. Very sobering.

Life without parole should handle most things unless it is strictly vengenance and you are willing to countenance some innocents dying to make you feel good.

BTW, the evidence that the death penalty deters others is very problematic.

I come down on the side of not being able to trust that a reasonable number of prosecutions are clean enough to evoke the ultimate penalty.
 
I'm against it....

Life in prison without parole has got to be horrible...and a fitting punishment for the worst of the worst; if you are innocent, atleast you have time on your side to present your case to the Innocence Project...if the state kills you, and you are found to be innocent later, it's Xin Loi...sorry about that G.I. :(
 
Life in prison without parole has got to be horrible...and a fitting punishment for the worst of the worst;
Click to expand...

Yea, that free cable, internet, gym, air conditioning, no work, free healthcare, education, etc... HAS GOT TO BE HELL!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top