The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?

[bozo]

I must admit that for myself coming into this thread I had a very one way opinion on the death penalty. But to be fair when you do consider that innocents can be killed, it does make you think.
As I've said though, I think there are good reasons for both sides of the argument, and personally I'm happy to go along with what the general concensus thinks is right.

Nap, may I compliment you on your rethinking of the issue! You clearly are open-minded.
As regards concensus, as you know in the UK , a free vote on the issue among the members of parliament has consistently been in favour of no return to hanging.
I very rarely heap praise on the honourable members, but do so on this issue.

[Faith No More]

Is a vacuum cleaner useless because it will suck anything if not directed?

No, it just needs a pimp.

[Napoléon]

Nap, may I compliment you on your rethinking of the issue! You clearly are open-minded.
As regards concensus, as you know in the UK , a free vote on the issue among the members of parliament has consistently been in favour of no return to hanging.
I very rarely heap praise on the honourable members, but do so on this issue.

Well first off I've never been in favour of hanging anyway. Second I'm open minded about everything (unless you're making ridiculous claims, then I'll want evidence or at the very least some form of reasoning). Third I haven't necessarily changed my mind, I've just came to understand the opposing argument alot better and give it alot more credit than I did before.
As a result I just think I'm not fussed whether the death penalty is allowed or not. But personal preference would still be to have it for certain individuals.

Thanks for the compliment nonetheless.

[Judas BentHer]

I freely admit that while I oppose the death penalty, in cases like that which I'm now watching in Florida; State vs. Casey Anthony, a capital case, I figure if it's in place already there are some people that deserve to be killed for their crimes.

Hypocrisy may be the retort in light of that opinion and I freely accept that judgment. However, given the personality of one Casey Anthony, in the above mentioned case, the greater punishment for her would be a sentence of life without parole. She'd then suffer every day knowing as she awoke to a new morning, that she had yet another day to live in a box, within a box, within high walls. Where the Florida sun and climate is obscured by being forever in custody of the State, while controlled by higher authorities in all manner of things all the days of her life, while having to fight to survive a potential death penalty applied by fellow inmates for her crime of infanticide, and that being a reminder of what she did and thus why she's there, would then carry with her all her days. And at less of a tax payer expense than what is afforded a sentence of death.

Emotion aside, I oppose the death penalty not because it's immoral to take a human life. Rather, because the system of criminal justice has been proven to be fallible in the exercise of justice. That DNA can exonerate an innocent who's spent decades in general population or was even on death row, lends evidence that the system is not perfect.

And while that's not all that surprising, taking a life as the ultimate sentence afforded within that system precludes any chance of appeal to the justice that would set an innocent free at trial, much less after sentencing. As such, killing an innocent is murder. While jailing an innocent is a civil law suit, because the wrongly accused is alive not only to see freedom from the injustice that incarcerated them after pursuit and success in appeals, but also sends the message that wrongful conviction is a life penalty that true justice can not tolerate and as such should not murder,in the event all is not right in the process of seeking prosecution.
Because murdering an innocent precludes any chance of finding the truth and holding those responsible for a wrongful conviction accountable. There is no appeal that releases the dead from their tomb.

And in a perfect world, wrongful convictions would be investigated just as diligently as initial prosecutions. And any and all who were responsible for that miscarriage of justice would be tried and sentenced to the same fate as their victim.

It is said of the criminal justice system in America; well, it isn't perfect but it's better than most countries and it's the best we have.
That may indeed be true. However, it is at our peril as a people if we benignly accept it is the best we can do.


(edit typo. spend/spent)

[twocompulsive]

One reason why some are in favour of the death penalty is because they erroneously believe that by denying the perpetrator their life, they are somehow punishing them. But the absolute worst thing you can do to someone is to put them in permanent solitary confinement. That is far more damaging than a quick death. Once it has occurred then that individual suffers no more. So how this can be viewed as punishment is beyond me, when they could be languishing in a tiny cell for the rest of their life. If I had to choose between the two, I know which I would opt for. Though I would rather the guillotine than lethal injection. One second to die is much better than twenty five minutes.

[Epimethean]

It is less about punishment and more about prevention if it were to be handled in a consistent manner without ten million appeals and twenty years on death row, all subsidized by tax payers. I'll be damned if I find anything just in paying to keep some serial rapist or killer alive at my cost just to "punish" him. Fuck that, give him his chance for an appeal and then shoot him up like Lassie and burn his ass.

[Anymouse]

I must admit that for myself coming into this thread I had a very one way opinion on the death penalty. But to be fair when you do consider that innocents can be killed, it does make you think.
As I've said though, I think there are good reasons for both sides of the argument, and personally I'm happy to go along with what the general concensus thinks is right.

I can't abide by the "general consensus thinking what is right." Democracy is merely tyranny of the masses. The general consensus of what is right to the question "What do two wolves and a sheep vote on for dinner?"

The majority is often "not right." Should I abide by the majority if they are wrong? I am not ready to present myself to the town witchduck, since the majority in this nation claim Christianity.

Going along with the general consensus on the death penalty means you accept the premise that the occasional innocent must be put to death, even you, for the general good of executing criminals. And when there is an execution, generally there is no more investigation into a crime, as the criminal has been executed. That means two wrongs perpetrated: an innocent executed, and a criminal left in society to prey on it more. (Wow, thirty-nine hundred views, and only sixty-three votes, as of this post. No one else has a voice? The majority doesn't care?)
James

[Judas BentHer]

It is less about punishment and more about prevention if it were to be handled in a consistent manner without ten million appeals and twenty years on death row, all subsidized by tax payers. I'll be damned if I find anything just in paying to keep some serial rapist or killer alive at my cost just to "punish" him.

Agreed. Which is why I think, and especially with the advent of private corporately owned prisons in America now, that a private corporately owned labor penitentiary system should be enacted as a test. One that includes segregated facilities, so that those doing life and life without parole are housed together and short timers are housed separate and apart, so they're not made prey and victim to those who have nothing to lose in a general population.

In such a system the tax payer monies would fund the facility management, security and utilities. While the prisoners would have to labor in order to afford the very basic necessities outside those of their cell accommodations. Also, self-euthanasia would be an elective for those serving life and LwoP as a matter of good business.

---

I can't abide by the "general consensus thinking what is right." Democracy is merely tyranny of the masses.

Curious. What form of government do you support? And why?

[Anymouse]

Agreed. Which is why I think, and especially with the advent of private corporately owned prisons in America now, that a private corporately owned labor penitentiary system should be enacted as a test. One that includes segregated facilities, so that those doing life and life without parole are housed together and short timers are housed separate and apart, so they're not made prey and victim to those who have nothing to lose in a general population.

I am definitely opposed to privatising prisons. It breeds both corporate and government corruption. Those corporations get more money for more prisoners, business then applies pressure to government officials to see that they do.

One example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

[Judas BentHer]

I didn't consider that angle as I did consider corporate labor detention facilities. Excellent point, thank you.
There was a Law and Order episode that mimicked the real life headlines in that link.
I rescind my former suggestion. I should have remembered the dark side; criminal justice system.