The penalty has never stopped the crime but I think all states should use it in cases where there is no question of guilt.

The death penalty has never worked as a deterrant.
Furthermore, as was said, innocent people would be executed. Also there can never be 100% certainty of guilt.
It is more expensive than life imprisonment.
And last but not least there is this little problem of the death penalty being inherently immoral.

I agree with @ragingloli. Death is pretty final; there’s no way to take it back if a mistake is made. I don’t know about deterrance, but human fallibility alone is enough to make me say that the death penalty is flawed.

Get rid of the death penalty everywhere. We’re not barbarians. Some people may act as such, but that doesn’t mean that we should stoop to their level in punishing them.

What about the victims of crimes? Where do they stand in this decision?

If the crime is out right murder then that person should give their life in return in all the states and the world.

Okay, I’m assuming that the death penalty is given in cases of premeditated murder, is that the case?

People convicted of premeditated murder should, in my opinion, spend life in prison in a spartan environment. That means none of the fancy stuff – no TV, visitation, college classes, that kind of thing. Not necessarily solitary confinement, but limited contact.

As for the victims, I’m assuming that means the families of the murdered people? It’s unfortunate for them to have to live with the knowledge that their loved one’s killer is alive. But come on – killing someone is never okay. I don’t care who you are or who they are – it’s not okay.

How are we ever supposed to progress as a society if we can’t ever rise above that?

Then you are okay with society providing for the criminal and all the cost to keep them for life? So the families of the victims have to still pay for the killer to live?

I’ve never agreed with the death penalty only because the criminal is getting off to easy. Life behind bars (which should include hard labor) with no possibility freedom is the worst punishment IMO.
Also if it’s not going to be uniform across the country, I don’t see the fairness of the justice system.

@Summum – If that’s what needs to happen, then yes. I’m also in support of higher taxes in order to provide for those who can’t provide for themselves – one of those crazy socialist Canadians, y’know?

@AmWiser makes a good point about fairness. Why not abolish it across the UN?

To the state specifically – people seem to be painting this as something that was all of a sudden. Illinois has been, essentially, experimenting with abolition and looking into the system to determine whether it could be administered properly for over ten years – since a moratorium was placed on it in 1999. As of it’s official abolishing, there were about 16 people on death row.

So Illinois has been a de facto abolitionist state for that long. The fact that the death penalty can’t possibly have been a deterrent in the recent years, the abolition will not have or should not have any significant effect on crime in the state.

As to the issue of victims – the problem with considering the victim point of view is multifaceted. I will simply point out now that criminal law is prosecuted against the defendant because the crime is a crime against the state. The victim in the case of a non-fatal crime will be at most a witness for the prosecution. And although they may form something like a client-lawyer relationship, the victim is not the client and the DAs office will pursue prosecution based on the interest of the office and the government generally.

Therefore, the victim really shouldn’t play a part in the process to begin with. It distracts the jury from considering the relevant aspects of the case.

(@Summum—like @ragingloli mentioned, execution is more costly than someone sitting in a prison cell, even if it is for the rest of their life.)

Personally, I think the death penalty is wrong. Like @Seelix said, barbarian.
Even if it gets rid of some certifiable, very violent, psychopaths (they want to kill and have no remorse,) I don’t think it’s worth it. Not becaue what they did isn’t awful, but because it was awful, killing is awful, because, more importantly, that extreme is not all cases. It’s not even most cases. And we can’t make exceptions like, “Oh, no, you’re really bad, so we’ll off you.”

It creeps me out that not only does the government have the ability to kill people, but we give it that right, and cheered on. It creeps me out that we make it “humane” by strapping them to a seat and injecting them with stuff. It creeps me out that we do this decades after the actual crime was commited (no avoiding that, we don’t want this to be a light decision,) and don’t account for time maybe changing things. It creeps me out that we punish their killing with more killing.

Furthermore, we do all this without considering that society may have played some part in shaping those it executes. I’m not saying all cases are tragic, misguided, boys. Just that other mental illnesses are on the rise, society isn’t perfect, and people are fairly easily molded.

So yes, the death penalty should be abolished.

I am very much in favor of the death penalty. I know it’s expensive I know that it can seem immoral, but I think it is important to prevent cases like Ted Bundy. I know they’re rare, but when we’re dealing with people’s lives, I don’t really think there’s room for margin for error.

I think it should only be used in very specific circumstances but I do think it should be used.

@Summum
“If the crime is out right murder then that person should give their life in return in all the states and the world.”
You make it sound like giving back something they took.
You can’t take one person’s life and give it to a dead person and resurrect them. You can only destroy yet another life. Everyone loses and nobody gains anything.

@KatawaGrey and I have discussed this a lot and agree. I think in some cases it is absolutely necessary to remove someone from all human society. Ted Bundy, after all, escaped and killed again before he was finally executed. Can we guarantee that the person would never escape during a transfer or some other unforeseen circumstance?

@JilltheTooth: no, you can’t guarantee anything about the future. But perhaps, with less money spent on execution, more money can go into making better and more secure prisons.

As with most issues, each states should have the right to make their laws. Quinn flip flopped on this issue, and is his right. But just because he and Illinois decid one thing hardly means other states, like Indiana should be expected to follow suit.

The death penalty has been proven to not have an effect on crime rates, and it is typically much more expensive to execute someone than to just imprison them for life (thanks to years and years of appeals and such).

That having been said, I am in full support of the death penalty for two crimes. Murder, and rape.

@tedd (and others that are saying that there is proof that there is no deterrence).

I don’t believe thsi to be true. However, there is also clearly no real good proof that there IS a deterrence effect.

This is one of the cases where a lot of people are, I think, both confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence, arguing from ignorance, and comparing “apples and oranges.”

A lot is made of the fact that states with the death penalty have a higher incident of violent crime than those without it. However, the states that are discussed as the high crime states are also mostly southern and western with significant class differences and poverty issues, and perhaps a more ingrained culture of violence. So, there isn’t a clear indication that, should there not have been a death penalty, these places would not be more violent.

@tedd
Even though it doesn’t help?

I have no problem with permanently removing the excessively violent repeat offender from society.

Regarding the innocent, it is important to keep in mind that people sentenced to death are rarely first time offenders. Generally they have repeatedly demonstrated their danger to society. Yes, in very rare cases some evidence comes to light after the fact to call into question the conviction for the particular offense that resulted in them winding up on death row. However, the lifetime of the problematic behavioral pattern is pretty much always beyond doubt.

~
Yep, here in Texas if you murder somebody and there’s witnesses, we’ll kill you back!

And in todays technology often times with DNA there is proof and I would want the death sentence to be used in such cases.

Regarding crime rates, the death penalty is not about deterring would be criminals, nor is it about punishment. It is about permanently removing those convicted of capitol offenses from society in a manner that does not involve the expense of a lifetime of humane treatment behind bars.

@Summum : The death penalty is more expensive than life without parole.

*North Carolina spends $2.16 million per execution more than the costs of a non-death penalty murder case.

*Florida has spent around $57 million on the death penalty for just 18 executions. This averages to about $3.2 million per execution.

*In Texas, the death penalty costs an average of $2.3 million per execution, three times more expensive than imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.

*The State of Ohio spent $1.5 million to execute a mentally retarded man who wanted to be executed.

*California spends $90 million annually on the death penalty over the costs of their regular system. $78 million of that money is spent at the trial level, proving that the death penalty costs come almost completely from the trial level.

(from here)

@YoBob – Retributive justice is perhaps the least morally justifiable reason for a criminal policy. It’s really, in the end, an institutionalized form of revenge.

@troubleinharlem Then someone is making money they shouldn’t be. It doesn’t make sense to me but regardless I support the death sentence and think that it is morally correct to do.

@Summum
The higher cost is partly due to appeals by the convicted, and judging from the fact that many of those are later released as innocent, those appeals are necessary.

@iamthemob – Our entire criminal justice system is founded on retributive justice. Any punitive judgment is retributive in nature and ranges in scope from simple traffic fines to lengthy prison terms.

However, as previously stated. IMHO, capitol punishment is not about retribution, it is about removing the excessively violent repeat offender from society in a very practical and permanent fashion.

GA @YoBob

I currently live in Illinois and the repeal of this law is all over the news today. I happen to be against the death penalty but wonder if “the right” of a state to choose it is not also fair the way this country was built. I wonder if crime statistics are really compared between those that have it and those that don’t. I also don’t understand why it is more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in life confinement. I have heard that the mentally ill are not executed, but wonder if one has commited whatever heinous crime, is that not already an example of a serious mental illness in a civilized society? Guess I’m more wondering than responding here. Am new to this site, but it is an AMAZING group of thoughtful, intelligent people.

Elspeth, first Welcome to Fluther. Second, thanks your answer.

@YoBob – Not entirely accurate. We have dropped out detention and rehabilitation attempts in favor of a more pure retributive system, but it wasn’t the main point from a criminal justice perspective as policy from the initiation.

Saying that retribution has been a part of the system, which is accurate, is not the same as saying that it has always been the primary or even a significant reason.

But in the end, removing these individuals permanently through death is both (1) overreaching, and (2) doing a disservice to our society. LWOP is LWOP, and permanently removes people from society. The truly violent can be isolated unless they can relate with the general population. Further, those that are truly violent, if dead, can’t be studied. The least that they can do is provide us subjects so that we can perhaps discover what makes some tick.

Finally, let’s also consider how the DP creates new victims. It robs some of the victims’ families the opportunity to forgive, which is an opportunity for them to heal. We shouldn’t say that should be the victim mission…but even if we discount that, the people on Death Row often have living mothers, fathers, siblings, children, etc. Regardless of their crime, and regardless of whether those members think that their relative should die…how are we to assume that those families can accept the legitimate rule of law when it strapped that loved one down and killed him in a calculated manner?

Would the Illinois repealed execution law give new meaning to the song “Indiana Wants Me”(Lord I cant’t go back there). I know its not Illinois, but please use your imagination.

As a Canadian, the death penalty is one of the very few things I admire about the U.S.

Serial killers will never change. They will never be of use to society. There is no logical reason to keep them alive, other than those who feel the need to be “compassionate” at the cost of rational thinking. The only people you should feel compassion for are victims and their families and friends.

How are we supposed to progress as a society when we treat violent killers with more respect and concern than their innocent victims.

@Faiblesse Yes even though it doesn’t work as a deterrent. In my opinion it still works as a punishment and is completely fair for crimes such as those.

There are some cases, like that of Timothy McVeigh, in which I support this action by the state. There are some people whose actions are so depraved that they don’t deserve to breathe the same air as the rest of us. In general, its not something that I could support for anything less than the kind of heinous act that the Oklahoma City bombings, 9/11, and other crimes where there is a major loss of life. But if crimes like these are committed, light ‘em up.

I don’t believe in the death penalty and it has been a proven fact for years that the death penalty, nor jail time are deterrents in crime. The only deterrents come from good social work and education.

@cazzie That’s not really the point. If an adult in their right mind uses their free will and makes the choice to murder someone, they should be punished for it. What kind of civilized society treats human life so expendably that murder victims can just be shrugged off with a “whelp, it’s societys fault, let’s give the murderer a slap on the wrist”.

Social work and education are absolutly important as deterrents of crime and a better society in general. But even if we lived in a perfect utopia tomorrow, there will always be scumbags. It will never end, they will never go away, no matter how perfect society is. And quite frankly, fuck them.

We lock up criminals. We don’t kill them. ... in a civilised society.

The point of the death penalty is not to deter crime it is a punishment that fits the crime. They should pay with their lifes if they choose to take someones life.

@cazzie You just said that jail time is not a deterrant.

@syzygy2600 and nor is death. what’s your point?

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

@cazzie would you protect and kill someone that was attacking your children and or family? If the only way to stop it was to kill them would you do it?

@cazzie Your first post implied that the death penalty and jail time are useless as they don’t deter crime. Your second post then stated that in a civilized society we lock people up and don’t kill them. See the problem there?

Just curious, do you believe that adults in their right mind should be held accountable for their actions at all?

@cazzie – While it is true that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, a lethal injection leaves the world with one less violent psychopath to worry about.

The death penalty is not justice… it’s revenge.

@syzygy2600 I was responding to an earlier post about death penalty and deterrent to crime.

@Summum

would you protect and kill someone that was attacking your children and or family? If the only way to stop it was to kill them would you do it?

This is exactly the argument for the decision being taken out of our hands and put in that of the state. The reason why we really shouldn’t have the DP in my mind is because lynch mob revenge is the justice of the lawless.

@john65pennington

Hello, my friend!

In response to your inquiry as to the feelings of the victims, I believe you would agree with me more than anyone that while one might feel like “killing them back”, that such things are not permitted by law among the common folk, and I see no reason why it should be allowed as long as the one committing the revenge murder is on a government payroll.

@Seek_Kolinahr That’s not too clear. Not sure if you’re for or against capiltal punishment. May want to elaborate.

I would say that just about anyone would kill to protect their life or that of their family. Capital punishment is a way of protecting your families especially if they are repeat offenders.

The only way state-sanctioned execution can be justified is if its application is limited to agents of the state (politicians, police, military, and bureaucrats). Those of us who refuse to relinquish our autonomy and sovereignty to the state should not be subjected to the state’s flawed judicial whims in general, and that is especially true in the case of the death penalty in particular.

If you live in the state then you should abide by the laws of that state otherwise leave and go to one you like.

Hell with that. I don’t recognize any state’s right to exist, and certainly should have to leave my home just because the state expects me to.

As Amerikan states go, mine is fairly civil though.

Ooooh, Amerika, how edgy and cool. I don’t think anyone gives a shit if you recognize a states right to exist or not.

Nope. I see the death penalty as part deterrent, part regulated consequence, like prison sentences. Small crimes get short incarcerations, larger crimes get longer ones. Really bad crimes get life, and the worst crimes get death.

@bolwerk Living in the country means tacit acceptance of government authority. In such democratically-inclined states as there are, we may influence that authority. I believe that it’s part of what they call a “social contract;” they keep the peace and maintain the infrastructure for us, and we support them financially.

I believe the death penalty should be only be used for the most evil of crimes. It should not be used for just a murder but an exceptionally evil murder. It should be also used for a person who is guilty without a shadow of a doubt. If there is even a chance he did not commit it then he/she should not recieve the death penalty. People like Richard Ramirez and Ted bundy deserve the death penalty. They target innocent people and end their lives in gruesome ways. People like Adolf Hitler deserve the death penalty for their crimes of genocide. People like Timothy Mcveigh deserve the death penalty for their terrorism.

@Mikewlf337 Thats how I view it as well. It should be reserved only for the most depraved and only is cases where guilt can be established beyond any reasonable doubt.

I’m Canadian and we abolished our death penalty in the 1960’s. I think it should have stuck around, I’d have no problem giving the needle to Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.

@syzygy2600: I suppose, but then how much does anyone really care about anything? Which brings me to my next question: what stick broke off in your stink?

@Nullo: no, it does not. What an absurd idea.

I don’t think the death penalty has ever been a deterrent. Most murders are crimes of passion and/or the murderers don’t believe that they will get caught.

Killing people is wrong, even if the the murders “deserve” to die, that doesn’t make killing right for society and the state to kill people. Murderers have all sorts of reasons for why they kill people (some are even legitimate, like in a case when a mother kills the person who raped and murdered her child) and from a perspective of law, it doesn’t matter what their reasons were, they’re still breaking the law. So it’s just as wrong IMO if the state decides to kill someone because they were a murderer. Murderers probably “deserve” to die, but it should not be up to the state or anyone else to kill that person, it’s just perpetuates killing. Murderers should be stopped and put away.

And yes, innocent people have wrongly been put to death and that is a horrible tragedy for a country that supposedly believes in justice. Killing people, even murderers is inhumane.

The only place where I feel it is justifiable, is if the relatives of a murder victim got the opportunity to kill the murderer themselves, but even that is really kind of sick and twisted and goes against reasonableness and laws and society. That type of thing, although the murderers clearly “deserve it” would cause anarchy. That’s why we don’t allow it.

Killing the killers just makes more killers. We need better ways of preventing people from murdering other people in the first place and we need to be able to find, prosecute, lock up and keep in prison (without the possibility of parole) the murders much more quickly, without all of the red tape, and it needs to be done in a much more cost effective manner. It should not cost the state the amount of money we spend per prisoner, to keep someone safely locked up in a cell and to feed them a cheap and nutritious meal 3 times a day. The economists are guilty in this situation too, for not being able to come up with some good solutions for housing murderers cheaply. They should definitely be put to work doing some type of un-pleasant, but useful tasks that can help our society. If they refuse, then they just get to stay in their cells with no phone, letters, tv, internet, books or other forms of amusement.

Seek Kolinar, where have you been? I have not heard from you in two months.

@bolwerk Not as crazy as you think..

Of course. It’s called progress.

I live in New Jersey where there is no death penalty, I think there should be. I live very close to Lakewood where a police officer was shot and murdered in his car for no reason, other than he was an officer of the law. Do I think the suspect should fry? Yes I do. Last summer two people were savagely murdered 2 blocks from my house, do I think the guys who did it should be fried? Yes I do. Why should tax paying Americans pay to let scumbags like those live? They get three square meals a day, cable, housing, health care, etc. When we as a country can give this to EVERY American that isn’t in prison then maybe we should abolish the death penalty… but until then, I think that we should stop putting people in prison to rot and just finish them off. I know I sound cruel and cold but good hard working people struggle everyday and these scumbags get to sit around and take our money…

@Lola612 – part of the reason the death penalty was abolished in NJ was a recognition that it costs significantly more due to constitutional right to appeal to put someone to death than to sentence them to LWOP.

Also, recognize that since the DP is for the worst of the worst, it never touched any percentage of the violent crime, even violent crime that resulted in death, in NJ.

@john65pennington Just been without internet for a while. I’m at the library now, actually. ^_^

If anyone is unclear, (ahem, @12Oaks) I am against the death penalty.

It is illogical to kill people who kill people to tell people that killing people is wrong.

@Seek_Kolinahr I believe, there is such a thing as justifiable homicide. For example, if some psycho was clearly threatening to do violent harm to you, your husband, or your children I suspect you would have no problem defending yourself up to and including deadly force if necessary, Am I right?

IMHO, capitol punishment is simply society using deadly force in justifiable self defense. How is allowing somebody to rot in prison for 40 years with no chance of parole more humane than a fairly expedient execution? Both are, after all, effectively death sentences, it’s just that one takes longer than the other to complete.

@YoBob – The situation in @Seek_Kolinahr‘s post is solely about the logic of killing someone who killed someone…not about whether killing someone could ever relieve someone form liability legally or morally for causing the death of another.

In the case of the DP, the state is intentionally killing a human being. In the case of self defense or defense of another, the intent is not purely to kill the other person but rather to stop them from killing.

Those are never defined as intentional homicides. But it is also not a statement that the act is right either – it is simply a statement that it was more right than it was wrong.

And self defense and the death penalty are no where near each other right now. In order to prove that you actually were defending yourself, you have to show that you were reasonably in fear of imminent bodily harm/death and thought (in many cases) aggression was your only option. In fact, most of the time it is so strict that you don’t get it if you could easily run away. The death penalty is not at all similar in that it is assuming (even if reasonably) some future crime, and therefore there is no imminence in the fear.

Taking a life that has been killing and will more than likely do it again is the same thing as protecting your family and your life. If he gets out of prison or escapes he will more than likely kill again so if they take his life you are sure he will not kill again.

@Summum – Ahh, the “what if he escapes” red herring.

May I ask if you have any sort of data on how many people on death row have escaped? Or those who are on LWOP (high security)?

I live out by the Utah State prison and many escape there. We get alerts all the time. But no I don’t have any statistics.

@iamthemob Ever hear of Ted Bundy? He escaped. Twice.

@Summum – Are those the ones that are on death row?

@syzygy2600 – I was wondering who was going to bring him up. ;-)

And you’re right, but he escaped during trials prior to conviction, where he wasn’t actually (1) convicted, and (2) subject to low levels of security a good deal of the time.

Therefore, Ted Bundy isn’t an example, because what we have to look at is the difference between those currently in prison on death-eligible LWOP sentences and how often they get out, and whether therefore it’s reasonable to think that those who are added to that population from death row will escape to kill again.

When you’re dealing with violent psychopaths with no regard for human life, I don’t think there’s such a thing as being too careful.

@iamthemob : I fully appreciate the statistical improbability of escapes, which is why I always use Bundy as an example in these arguments, but I doubt the families of Lisa Levy, Margaret Bowman and Kimberly Leach would agree that that should be a factor.

“One week after Bundy’s arrival in Tallahassee, at approximately 3 a.m. on January 15, Bundy entered the Florida State University Chi Omega sorority house and killed two sleeping women, Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman. Using a branch from an oak tree, Bundy bludgeoned and strangled them both; he also sexually assaulted Levy. Bundy then moved from Levy’s and Bowman’s rooms to bludgeon and severely injure two other Chi Omegas, roommates Karen Chandler and Kathy Kleiner. The entire episode took no more than half an hour. After leaving the Chi Omega house, Bundy broke into another home a few blocks away, clubbing and severely injuring Florida State University student Cheryl Thomas.[77]

On February 8, Bundy traveled to Jacksonville, driving a van stolen from the FSU audio-visual department. He approached a 14-year-old girl named Leslie Parmenter in a K-Mart parking lot, pretending to be “Richard Burton, Fire Department”, but left hurriedly when her older brother arrived.[78] He moved on to Lake City, Florida. The next day he abducted 12-year-old Kimberly Leach from the grounds of Lake City Junior High School. Bundy raped and murdered Leach, throwing her body under a small pig shed.”

@syzygy2600
Well, I guess we should skip the trial altogether and kill them immediately after they are arrested.

@iamthemob : If you’re here, why does your account look eaten by Triton???? What’s going on?

@syzygy2600 – So…it’s better to end up putting innocent people to death (which has in fact happened and, as thousands have been let off death row after the revelation of DNA evidence, will continue to happen) than to risk the possibility that someone who was on LWOP instead of on Death Row might escape, regardless of whether the likelihood is so remote as to be zero?

Further, as @ragingloli hints at partially, note that the average stay on death row is several years.

@JilltheTooth – I understand what you’re saying, but please understand what you’re doing when you appeal to emotion with that post.

There is absolutely nothing that either having the DP or not would have done to affect the outcome of that scenario because Bundy was neither tried nor convicted. Therefore, the DP couldn’t possibly change what happened.

Except in one way: it may in fact increase the urgency or desire of the defendant in custody to try to run if they think they might get death. It might scare them so much they take any opportunity they see to get away. I know, in fact, that if I was facing death – that’s when I would REALLY try to run prior to trial.

The problem with the example is that it’s an appeal to the emotion of the victim’s families and makes it seem callous to not want the death penalty. But it’s an emotional link that is false as the argument has nothing to do with that scenario.

Briefly – think about the family of the man who is executed. What have they done to deserve being so victimized by the state?

From PeaceWorks Magazine

I am the daughter of a man who was executed. It was several years before I learned this truth and many more years before I was able to speak out about it.

My father’s parents raised me, and I spent weekends and holidays with my mother and stepfather. I knew that my father had died when I was a baby, and my grandmother told me that he died of an illness. I wasn’t very inquisitive about my father because I trusted that what my grandmother told me was the truth. She had a picture of my father and mother on their wedding day, and she always made a point of telling me that I was wanted and loved. Although we didn’t talk about my father, each year we made a trip to the graveyard and put flowers on his grave.

One day when I was about 11, I was coming home from rollerskating with friends. The mother who was driving us, after asking me some routine questions about myself, asked, “Wasn’t your father executed?” There I was in the company of my girlfriends, hearing something shocking that I had never heard before. I was devastated, and when I got home I immediately said to my grandmother, “I can’t believe you lied to me!” My grandmother had never lied to me, so it had never occurred to me that she might be telling me something that was not the full truth.

But she said, “Yes, your father was executed. I knew that one of these days I was going to have to tell you, but this was not the day that I expected to have to do it.” She didn’t go into a lot of detail. All she said was that he had gotten into some trouble and that they were a very poor family and couldn’t get good legal counsel.

…

I think it’s important to realize that when the state kills, the people they kill have family members. Any time there’s a homicide, an entire family is affected, and that’s just as true when the state is the one who kills.

My mother told me that the night my father was executed, she and my grandmother had to go down to the Ohio State Penitentiary and wait to receive the body. Still, today, I have a hard time imagining that. How do you sit in a room somewhere and wait to receive the body of your son that somebody is deliberately putting to death? How do you live through that?

My grandmother was 46 when her first-born son was arrested; I was 46 when my first-born son was arrested. But my grandmother didn’t have a voice. She couldn’t say the kinds of things that I can say, and although I can try to imagine it, I can’t know all the things she felt. I hope that by sharing this story, I can help another mother who is dealing with such a loss be able to find her voice.

No one said to put innocent people to death? I think you will see that almost everyone said if there is concrete evidence then they should get the death penalty and if there is doubt then lWOP is a good thing. I knew the people that were killed in a HI FI shop here in Utah years ago and one of my best friends was the first to go into investigate and he saw the bodies. With what he saw I would say they deserved the death sentence and finally got it about 20 years after the act.

@iamthemob : You’re right, it was a shameless emotional argument, but my point is that there are some (thank god not many) that cannot exist in any human society. I think the definition of a “capital” crime should be more strict, but I do believe it should still exist in extreme cases.

How does one live with that? Well what did those that were killed do and feel as they waited for the killer to do them in. Many torture their victims and does anyone take into account these things? I know that the Hi Fi shop killers tortured those they killed because one of them was a girl friend and they broke her hips while raping her. How does the family that heres this and knows this about their family member feel? If it were my family member that did that I would want the state to put them down. It is all an awful thing in life but when they take a life and do so willingly then their life should be taken.

Exactly who died and made us God? As has been said many times before, we have seen no examples in which the death penalty deters crime, we have often killed people and then found showing the guilt of someone else, and exactly what comfort does it give to the victim or their family? I know that people will say that at least it gets them off the street, but again I ask who died and made us God?

It is our laws that use the death penalty and it is not anyone saying they are God. There are always results to any of our actions. If we break the law then we should know that there may come a time when we are held responsible for that.

@Summum – the problem is that as long as the system involves people, you will have error. There is no reasonable argument against the fact that such a system will always result in the execution of innocent individuals. Therefore, acceptance of the death penalty is acceptance of this.

The problem is that your discussion of the HI FI murders shows partially why there is an issue with the death penalty, and @JilltheTooth‘s suggestion as well: the end result as to who will be given the DP is based in the end on wholly subjective reaction, and emotion. When we attempt to single out the worst offenders, that ends up being subjective. The further in fact we cut it down or specify, the more arbitrary.

The upsetting thing, therefore, is that if we want the system to be less arbitrary in sentencing, we should be applying it to more murders. But if we apply it to more murders, then in the end we are ensuring that we will sentence more people to death that were not guilty.

@GracieT‘s question is based on the fact that when we decide who lives and dies, that’s playing god. If the argument is that so did a killer…then really we are arguing that the state should get to be as bad as the killer.

No…we really should ask that the state be better.

@iamthemob I do see your point and you understand it well. The laws have it that the people personally involved in any murder such as the families will not have the say as to the sentence and for good reason. I give you lurve for your understanding of the issues but I for one am for the death sentence and only where we can prove it with the evidence. If there is any question at all then yes I would just keep them locked up forever.

These people are trying to pretend that everyone who supports the death penalty is in favor of it in all circumstances and thinks it should be tossed around lightly.

No one is saying that. Most of us are saying it should be reserved for only the most heinous criminals, such as serial killers, and only in cases where guilt can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Enough of this “you support the death penalty? I guess that means you think we should just kill people immediately after arrest, hurf durf”

@syzygy2600
The inevitable conclusion of your “we can’t be too careful”, is to make sure that they do not get a “not guilty” verdict, because there is always a chance that they are guilty.
It is not my fault that you are unwilling to walk your own road to the end.

So far, this has been a fairly civilized discussion about a very volatile topic. Can we keep it that way, please?

@ragingloli actually if you look at the statement with rational thinking, it would imply that “we can’t be too careful with someone who has been found guilty in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt. One would think that would go without saying.

That is not what you wrote, and that is with reasonable certainty not what it implied.
You should have written that in the first place.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is not what it used to be. @syzygy2600, I see where you’re coming from. For me, I think that the legal system cannot live up to the standards we set for it if it ends up killing, intentionally. And especially when you consider that there is a good likelihood that at least a couple of the people who decide whether this may be less than the brightest bulbs.

With science and the DNA testing it can bring a much clearer picture to the crime than we used to have and in fact they have found a few were innocent based on DNA. They have let a few people out of prison recently because of DNA testing.

[Mod Says] Flame off folks. Remember to disagree without being disagreeable.

Please respect one another. Thanks!

@Summum – True. But that argument reveals that the pursuit of truth in the law is getting better – and therefore that it is flawed. And a flawed system cannot, in my mind, be trusted to dole out a punishment that is irremediable.

@GracieT – You ask “Exactly who died and made us God?”

Nobody died and made us God any more than somebody died and did so for that serial killer that has a compulsion to sexually torture teenage girls to the point that they ultimately die from the physical trauma.

It is not about playing God or about avenging the crime, it’s about permanently removing violent repeat offenders from society.

A life sentence without possibility of parole is effectively a death sentence the only difference is the convicted are destined die a slow death while we feed, house, and guard them until the ultimate conclusion. No matter how you slice it, with any life sentence that carries no possibility of parole we have effectively passed a death sentence and I believe it disingenuous to try to make out like we are somehow morally superior because we carry out that sentence using time as the method of execution rather than a far quicker (and perhaps more humane) method.

@YoBob

That’s not clearly the only difference though. A life sentence offers an opportunity for reconciliation. I’m not all starry eyed about the possibility that this is what will happen – however, so much of the time victims’ families describe feeling empty, unfulfilled, etc. after the execution of their loved ones’ killers. Check out this article out of Texas.

@iamthemob As opposed to feeling empty and unfulfilled before the execution?

As I have stated repeatedly, it is not about revenge. It is about final disposition of the physical shell of the convicted. In one case you let them sit in a room and allow time to be the instrument of their ultimate demise, in the other case they are disposed of a bit more quickly (and it might even be argued, more humanely).

We live in an imperfect world there isn’t anything in this life that is not flawed.

What of the victims and their families don’t you think they feel empty now that someone choose to torture and kill their loved ones?

@YoBob – How they feel before the execution has little to do with the argument. They have suffered a tragedy. The point is that nothing the state can do can change that.

But the argument that the punishment is kinder can’t come into it really, considering that it cannot be a purpose for the DP. If the DP is for the gravest crimes, then the state cannot argue for the DP based on the fact that it is kinder than LWOP, as there are still going to be people who qualify for LWOP that haven’t committed a death-qualifying crime.

Talking about the “final disposition fo the physical shell” is concerning language. Regardless of what we think individually, the state cannot consider the inmate’s body the state’s “property.” That level of dehumanization isn’t proper for the state.

@Summum – and that’s why I think that the DP is an offense to the rule of law. To say that we can’t have a perfect system is not about stopping ourselves from striving for it to be better and better – it’s as you say an admission of the facts of life. To admit that and then say regardless of that fact, we’re still going to execute people even though it will result in mistakes is an upsetting argument for me – I understand it from an individual perspective, but it cannot be the argument of the state.

And I already commented on the victims’ families. As a note, the Victim’s Rights Movement in the context of DP jurisdictions was my law school “thesis” . That doesn’t mean that you have to agree with me (although I think you should ;-)), but I’ve looked at it from just this angle.

The links above cover both what it does and can do to the families of the original victim as well as the families of the person executed. The thing that we must realize here is that the families of the person being executed is on equal moral and legal footing (or should be) as they were no part of the crime.

@Nullo: So, someone said it in the past, so it must be true? Do you believe everything you hear? With the possible exception of Rawls, it makes for a rather infantile argument.

(And why the hell would I take anything written on Wikipedia seriously without extensive fact checking?)

It has to be an argument for the state it can’t be anything else. Everything the state or anyone else does falls into that argument because everything we do is flawed.

If you’re going to support the death penalty to “protect” your family, at least have the balls to kill the person yourself. Don’t let the state do your dirty work. I got no problem with that position at all.

There is no dirty work and the law is the law so it is the states responsiblity to do the deed.

@Summum – I’ve spoken to and seen talks by some of the wardens and people who were responsible for actually pushing the button or throwing the switch on it. Of course, everyone has a different reaction…but there are a good number who never forget the coldness associated with that.

The state has to act through it’s agents.

@bolwerk Go back and re-read my posts. And while you’re at it, look up the why behind the first cities.

@Summum: whereas everyone else has a moral responsibility to break the law to the fullest extent possible, particularly to piss off the “social contract” cretins!

@iamthemob: usually the state ritualizes it in a vain attempt to diffuse responsibility. For instance, a firing squad will be made up of a few members, and one will have a blank in their gun. None of the members will know who has the blank. (Shocker: the government doesn’t want people to take responsibility for their actions either.)

@bolwerk – I know – the interesting part of it is that the firing squad is arguably one of the most humane ways of following through on the DP.

I only say, if you kill a murder as a penalty, then you are a murder too, shouldn’t you be killed too?

@max_gutierrez no you shouldn’t be killed for doing what the law allows us to do and if you are protecting your family then no you shouldn’t be killed either. Also in war it is the responsibility of the government for the deaths.

@max_gutierrez It is not murder if the killing is legal.

@summum that’s the point, the law allows me to kill a murder, but because of the law i am not a murder, that’s my point; just because of the law can i really have the indifference of killing people?

I would Agree in the point that, if someone is trying to kill you, beating or killing him are your only options, and with the law well, i think you have to prove it was self defense (i hate almost all laws and how they work it so i don’t know a lot of that, im just talking about immorality)

Obviously if someone tries to kill you, in your house or in a war, you have to fight him .

The point with that law is this, it can be an easy and legal way to kill someone that clogs some goals without him really needed to be killed.

@Mikewlf337 That’s what i tried to discuss, you aren’t a murder in law, but beside that, you are literally killing someone too

@max_gutierrez murder is an illegal killing with malicious aforethought.

We have the ability to change laws but as the law stands execution is allowed in many states. I am all for that and believe it is just.

Well, the Death Penalty puts the US in some very interesting company…....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation

Murder is murder. People who only see in black and white should try harder to see the real world with shades of grey about them. It takes a bit more effort, but I think it’s worth it.

@cazzie There is a broad gulf between murder and execution, as there is between theft and incarceration.

Yes, murder can be justified. Execution cannot be.

Execution is aboslutely justified. When someone takes on themselves to kill another in awful ways and in torture it is only right that that person has his life taken.

In both cases, you kill someone against his will.
The difference is that in one case, the people in power support the killer.

But it is totally justified in the case where the first person choose to kill another.

State-sanctioned execution is for cowards with shriveled nutsacks. A state executing people simply makes it so there is no one to be held accountable for the execution so that executed’s allies/family is left having trouble returning the favor – or, worse, makes it so there are too many people to properly take vengeance on.

Why would anyone need to take vengenence on another that killed a person with malice and purpose?

Of course. The death penalty is barbaric, and a product of vengeance rather than justice. Whether or not it works as a deterrent, and regardless of the cost, the fact remains that it is inherently immoral. No one has been murdered by the state here in Australia for decades, and I’m pretty sure we have lower rates of violent crime than the US. But maybe that is because we have gun control. Who knows?

@Summum: for the same reason you support the death penalty. If a judge were to execute one of your loved ones, you can be justified in slitting his throat.

@bolwerk If one of my loved one did something so evil like torturing and killing a child. I would not hold anything against that judge for giving him a death sentence. You fail to see his point. You don’t want to admit that Summum is right.

@Mikewlf337: Right about what, precisely? His point is that he doesn’t want to take responsibility. He wants his nanny, the state, to do the dirty work. That’s weak. I’m not entirely against the death penalty, but there is no way it can be carried about by the state in any meaningfully ethical, civil way.

No I would support a relative of mine being executed if he/she merited it. I would support it in my own behalf if I killed like those on death row have.