Is the death penalty ever justified?

[cobra_ky]

Ok, several questions for anyone against the death penalty.
1. What would you do if you had a famous criminal, such as Idi Amin or Osama Bin Laden? (I'm wary of Godwin's Law)

put them <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence>here for life. preferably in solitary.

2. What do you think we should have done during the Civil war or World War 2 to solve the problems these wars solved?

i'm opposed to the death penalty, not war. (nor am i opposed to killing in self-defense, for that matter.)

3. What is your stance on abortion? (I'm pro-choice)

i support it with absolutely no restrictions for the first two trimesters.

4. Do you really see no difference in killing an innocent person and a murderer?

sure there's a difference, the problem is it's often too hard to tell an innocent person from a murderer.

 

[oppp7]

Ok, several questions for anyone against the death penalty.
1. What would you do if you had a famous criminal, such as Idi Amin or Osama Bin Laden? (I'm wary of Godwin's Law)

put them <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence>here for life. preferably in solitary.

2. What do you think we should have done during the Civil war or World War 2 to solve the problems these wars solved?

i'm opposed to the death penalty, not war. (nor am i opposed to killing in self-defense, for that matter.)

3. What is your stance on abortion? (I'm pro-choice)

i support it with absolutely no restrictions for the first two trimesters.

4. Do you really see no difference in killing an innocent person and a murderer?

sure there's a difference, the problem is it's often too hard to tell an innocent person from a murderer.

1. Why waste valuable resources on them when you could be helping with something that could save several people's lives? Do you know how much money it would take to keep high profile criminals in maximum security? I'm guessing millions a year. Money that could be going to charity.
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Not always. That's why the appeal processes are so long. Luckily we have genetics.
A little off topic: How do you feel about eyewitness accounts? They are rarely correct (in fact, I've heard it's the least accurate form of evidence), can be manipulated, and degrades quickly. In my opinion eyewitness accounts should be mostly removed from courts. The problem with this is that it's a human rights violation.

 

[cobra_ky]

4. Not always. That's why the appeal processes are so long. Luckily we have genetics.
A little off topic: How do you feel about eyewitness accounts? They are rarely correct (in fact, I've heard it's the least accurate form of evidence), can be manipulated, and degrades quickly. In my opinion eyewitness accounts should be mostly removed from courts. The problem with this is that it's a human rights violation.

genetics aren't foolproof either: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/161079.php

But you're right, eyewitness accounts are often not nearly as accurate as most people think. unfortunately, they're often the primary form of evidence in a lot of trials. i think the best thing to do is inform jurors and law enforcement about the potential inaccuracy, and let them make the decision. i wouldn't throw them out completely, as i don't want murderers getting off because the crime lab screwed and contaminated the DNA samples or something.

 

[Azraellod]

yes, it is.

i think that there are many cases where it is justified. some people just don't deserve to live.

i have a kira-esque view of crime...

 

[Maniac1986]

I am generally in support of the death penalty, and I am def. against reintroducing rapists into society (on average 65% repeat the crime according to my Criminology textbook last year) Thats failing in my book (only 35% "productive") Now, if there was a death penalty for rape... why should a rapist bother to even let their victims live? That's kind of the only wrench in the works (sorry if someone brought this point up, I just sort of skimmed the comments.

 

[Azraellod]

I am wholly against the death penalty. In my opinion, the taking of a murderer's (or rapist's/whatever's) life is impossible to justify. Vengeance has no reason.

Aside from opinions, one misconception people seem to bring up all the time is that imprisonment for life is "wasting the tax-payer's dollars". This is untrue. Have a link:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/page.do?id=1101084

As you can see, in most states death penalty cases cost (on avarage) at least 50% more than non-death penalty cases. California is an extreme case, where removing the death penalty would cut the costs to a tenth.

Also, hi. I'm new.

hi, i may as well be the one to welcome you, since no-one else has so far.

i believe in the death penalty for simple purposes of elimination. not revenge. life in jail works equally well for me, since they are still dying eventually there. it's just life in jail seems more like the worse punishment of the two to me.

just so you understand we aren't all out purely for revenge, or to lower costs (which doesn't work, as you have said).

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Australian and no: For one it is imposable to know if you are getting the right guy. Oh sure there are cases where the person is standing there, bloody knife in hand, when arrested or is so bat shit insane he just goes on a rampage and is proud of it... but for ever one of those cases there are dozens, if not hundreds, where it has been all circumstantial evidence that put a person on death row!

In attempts to make this less of a possibility they have made mandatory appeals, ensuring that even the truly guilty can delay the sentence for decades on decades. Many have even died of natural causes before the punishment could be carried out, making a final mockery of the process. All the while the state has to pay for this procedure, making it way more costly to sentence someone to death then it is to hold them for the whole length of their natural lives.

So why bother with the death penalty?
If we can't be sure, in the vast majority of the cases, we are getting the right person and it is going to be more costly then just holding them for life... well why bother making murderers of us all?

 

[ShaFe123]

i think being gaol would be enough for any criminal.
if the crime is bad enough then a life sentence in prison obviously.
but the death penalty is inhumane.

 

[Barciad]

Probably for tyrants and other assorted mass-murderers. Say whatever you like about the circumstances surrounding the execution of Saddam Hussein, that man got what he deserved.

 

[AWC Viper]

I am for the death penalty. in certain circumstances like mass murder ( more than 1) but other than that i say life in prison (but in Australia life is only 25 years)

No, in Australia life is life. I thought the same thing, but my lecturer corrected me.

I don't have any philosophical qualms about the death penalty; there's a difference between wantonly killing someone in rage, or premeditating the murder of a legally innocent person, and a judge-appointed execution.

There are some people who are never going to be 'helped' by the legal system, and are such a danger to the populace that you have only the options of capital punishment or life imprisonment. The problem with life imprisonment is that the sentences are always reviewed because the parole boards etc. have short memories, and good behaviour is easy when you're inside an environment where you are never given the opportunity to offend; it is also exceptionally expensive.


The problem with death penalties, for me, is functional. Jurors are not mentally capable of committing someone to death when they know there is no second chance. They don't want to be the ones responsible for ending the life. Death penalties generally result in lower conviction rates for this reason.

There are also problems with the family the criminal leads behind; in many cases, the criminal will be the breadwinner and the family will have no insurance recourse or anything to support themselves once the person is put to death.


The argument above about "You can never be sure about the right guy" is exactly the problem with jury trials. The burden of doubt in criminal courts is "Beyond -REASONABLE- doubt, not beyond ALL doubt." It is bad functionality that 1000 criminals should be let free to make sure one innocent person isn't wrongfully convicted. The original quote about that was incredibly misleading, and here's an analogy to explain why:

Lets say your doctor has two tests for a particular dangerous and infectious disease. The first test gives a 5% false-positive, and a 0.1% chance false negative. The second test gives a 0.0001% false positive, but a 30% false negative. Which test would you rather he use? The first test is CLEARLY the superior option; the second test releases 30% of people with the disease back into the populace, allowing the infection to spread.

The legal system is set up specifically to determine guilt. If you can't trust it to do that, then we shouldn't have one at all; the magnitude of the punishment is irrelevant. Furthermore, as anyone educated or working in the legal sector will know, the chance of an innocent person even getting to court, let alone convicted, is EXTREMELY small.

no. the life penalty is a minimum of 25-35 years depending on the case and judge

 

[Agayek]

I support the death penalty in the case of murderers, rapists, and things of that ilk.

Essentially, I believe "An Eye for an Eye" is the truest form of justice. The perpetrator willingly chose to commit whatever heinous crimes, and as such have forfeited the right to be treated as human beings. They're not different from a dog that needs to be put down because it attacked someone.

That said, it should only be done when the evidence against them is the closest thing to perfect humanly possible. If the case is sound, fire away.

PS - I also want all executions to be performed publicly and to be significantly more violent than the lethal injection. Something like a shotgun blast to the face. And no more of the last request bullshit.

 

[Scarecrow38]

In Queensland, murder has a mandatory life sentence. I think that's better than the death penalty. It's a bit hard for a government to say killing people is wrong when it's government policy to do so.

 

[Agema]

I'm ideologically against the death penalty generally because I believe a major part of a justice system should be reforming criminals into useful members of society, not destroying them. Execution denies this possibility.

On a practical level I think the death penalty is also completely objectionable in any situation that may involve doubt about the guilt of the convicted. Many people in the dock for the most serious crimes have cases built against them on unsafe witnesses, forced confessions and circumstantial evidence, and they are often found guilty because the police and their lawyer (often state-appointed) have neither cared nor been competent.

I wouldn't even countenance execution for really massive, undeniable genocides such as the Hitlers, Saddam Husseins and Pol Pots of this world cause, although I might pragmatically turn a blind eye.

 

[Sindaine]

In the case of rapists and child molesters? Yes.

 

[oppp7]

I still think that the death penalty should be used as a deterrent. As for revenge purposes, no. Population control? No.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

It's absolutely, 100% justified.
In fact, it's pretty humane - death sentence is way, WAY worse.

There are people who deserve to pay for their actions. Death penalty works.

 

[akwardwhistle]

The death penalty should be used when a criminal is serving more than one life sentence (its not like they have anything to live for) or when they kill/rape/kill-some-more. That way us tax payers don't have spend our hard earn money keeping the trash alive, feed, and cloth. Mind you, I don't mean "they spend the rest of their lives in death row." I mean, as soon as they are sentence someone shoots them. That'll save some money.

Or we could bring back the coliseum and have them fight every day for our enjoyment.