Death Penalty Opponents

[MattTheSkywalker]

one of the top duties of the state is to protect it's citizens,

Maybe in North Korea it is. In the US, the only duty is to protect the *rights* of its citizens.

It's more than just semantics - we can impose curfews and chip implants in the name of "protecting" the citizens. "Protecting" the citizens is usually the justification for martial law.

As soon as you start looking to the state to protect you, you might as well give up all of your rights.

 

[the nature boy]

In my opinion here are reasons why it doesn't deter.

1. Many murders are crimes of passion.

2. Many murders are committed under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

3. The vast majority of murders committed in the city where I live are gang or other crime related violence.

The first two instances interfere with the murderer from actually weighing the consequences of his actions and he may be in such a mental state as to not care whether he lives or dies at that moment anyway.

The last instance is a result of "criminal culture" , certain afronts must be punished by "offing" someone. Likewise, the mental stress of an armed criminal act will often interfere with decision making to the point where things escalate beyond what was originally intended and someone gets murdered. I think you would be hard pressed to find a robber who intended murdering the clerk when he walked through the door. Finally, criminals do the dumbest things regardless. I 've heard stories from countless cops at my gym about some idiot running because he had a minor warrant and ended up with a much more serious charge for the fleeing.

If I can add another

4. Some/most murderers, are so fucked up that they don't give a shit about the death penalty and getting killed is the furthest thing from their minds. A SANE person would think about the possibility of getting caught and being executed, but I suspect a high percentage of people who kill don't even think about the repercussions for one second because they are fucked up in the head. A normal person doesn't abduct kids and kill them.

that being said, go ahead and kill then. but the deterrent factor is overrated.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

None of these apply in this particular case. FRY HIM!

Clearly you need the government to make you feel good about yourself.

What if the worng person was executed? Since people are freed from prison all the time, what makes you think it couldn't happen?

Do you trust your government so much that you want to give it the ability to execute people?

 

[the nature boy]

Maybe in North Korea it is. In the US, the only duty is to protect the *rights* of its citizens.

It's more than just semantics - we can impose curfews and chip implants in the name of "protecting" the citizens. "Protecting" the citizens is usually the justification for martial law.

As soon as you start looking to the state to protect you, you might as well give up all of your rights.

what are the rights of citizens?

 

[The Wenis]

In my opinion..... it doesn't deter.

execution is a 100% effective deterrent on the person executed. they never kill again.

 

[big_bad_buff]

for everyone that obviously commented the crime and has gotten a "life in prison" sentence you should have a week to live (to say good bye to who ever) then be killed.

and wtf is the point in giving someone a double or triple life sentence? or giving a 40 year old a 40 year sentence? what the hell? he' s in prison and everyone’s tax money is going to 80 year olds in prison who need all this special shit to stay alive

 

[havoc]

The bastard who abducted that young girl at the car wash. If he confesses, do you agree that he should be executed?

I think he should be exterminated in public, next week, and that it should be televised.

It would serve as a deterrent for would-be offenders and also provide justice.

This is flawed thinking.

The Death Penalty accomplishes what now?

What has it accomplished?

Oh, right! I know, before any person is about to go through with a crime that could possibly render the death penalty they usually stop right before the act and say "oh shitsky, the death penalty awaits, better not do this". What a bunch of shit, death penalty does not do anything positive.

 

[the nature boy]

what are the rights of citizens?

never mind, I just read the bill of rights.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

The big issue with the death penalty is not an issue of whether it is a deterrent - that question has been answered by a mountain of evidence that indicates the death penatly is not a deterrent at all.

Anyone who has researched this to any degree will tell you that death rows are populated largely by the kinds of people who lack the mental faculties to understand the consequences of an action or to think something through that far.

That question answered definitively, we must now ask ourselves: is it the correct punishment for people who commit the ultimate crime: 1st degree murder.

The answer is a matter of opinion. If you believe that life in prison is the correct punishment, then the discussion stops. This is a discussion of the death penalty, so let's discuss the idea that death IS the correct punishment for those convicted of first degree murder.

If we are going to allow the state to execute people, it is a moral (not to mention legal) imperative to make sure the correct person is apprehended, tried, convicted and executed.

It is a fact of our justice system that the wrong people are often convicted and impriosned. When these misatkes are made known, the convict is freed, and can be compensated. It doesn't give them their time back, but at least it does something.

With the death penalty, you're not coming back. Yet the standard for *conviction* in a death penalty case does not change. A standard which results in many incorrect imprisonments should not be applied to the death penalty.

Some death penalty advocates aruge that a standard of "absolute certainty" be imposed on death penalty cases. This is a tough standard - you'd pretty much have to see a videotape of the murder to be absolutely certain. Even then, it'd be hard to tell on a grainy convenience store video.

The problem with absolute certainty is that of inconsistency. How can you tell someone that they are getting life in prison for being convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" of second degree murder, but in the next courtroom, a guy is not getting the max sentence for his crime because the standard was different?

Life in prison and death are the same - the person is removed from society forever. The risk of escape is extremely small, yet it must be borne in order to prevent the execution of the wrong person. The only way the death penalty could be logically justified is on a standard of absolute certainty. But this cannot be applied; a justice system can't convict on two different standards - it's inconsistent and illogical. Therefore there are no logical impositions of the death penalty.

The death penalty is worng.

 

[WODIN]

But justice was served. I'm not so naive to think murder would stop.

How do you know justice is served by quick execution. You think people are not capable of manipulating a system to derive the death of others unjustly through that system?

Please.