Atheism & the Death Penalty.

[LadyForCamus]

You could as a *cough* "compromise" only execute where there is absolutely no doubt, and the evidence is too overwhelming for there to possibly have been a mistake. (Or at least, an incredibly small chance.) If I was going to bring it in, I'd do it just for murder, and just in that case. But I'm not saying I would.

And how would you determine if the evidence in any particular case is "overwhelming"? Families would push for this standard in cases that don't meet it. Perpetrators would push back. All this would do is add another layer of appeals to an already lengthy and expensive process.

How about requiring DNA evidence in the form of bodily fluids, since that is what gets people unquestionably off the hook in most cases. Would it be possible to differentiate in older cases?

[Iroscato]

Always been against it, always will be, without exception.

The only situation I condone killing of any kind is in extreme cases of self defense.

[Ben Davis]

Prison overpopulation can be handled far easier by reducing sentencing for/not incarcerating non-violent offenders, releasing three strike inmates who are in for three drug possession felonies and other non-violent inmates, etc...

...and can be handled more effectively, in the long term, by better addressing the social issues that lead to greater propensity to commit crimes: poverty, housing, education, civil rights, health, investment...

To the OP, I'm opposed to the death penalty in all forms for pretty much the same reasons that Simon Moon stated. Additionally, I'm an opponent of coercive ethics; I believe that prison should exist with the main purpose of rehabilitation and that people should be incarcerated until they're rehabilitated, irrespective of the offence. I'll say, in concert, that there are many offenses that shouldn't be and that many of the social fixes need putting in place before invitational ethics can really be applied to prison systems.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

And how would you determine if the evidence in any particular case is "overwhelming"?  Families would push for this standard in cases that don't meet it.  Perpetrators would push back.  All this would do is add another layer of appeals to an already lengthy and expensive process.

How about requiring DNA evidence in the form of bodily fluids, since that is what gets people unquestionably off the hook in most cases.  Would it be possible to differentiate in older cases?

The only thing which DNA proves is that the accused's DNA was present at the scene. Frame-up artists are good at making use of your DNA, and your fingerprints on discarded artifacts from outside the scene or prior to the crime. If you own a weapon (it could be kitchen knife), this doesn't make you a murderer, but somebody may steal this with your prints on it.

Those of us who were not involved at the time do not, and cannot know enough to sort out the above from what actually happened, therefore we should not participate in any decision which is as certain and final as a death sentence. Frame-ups actually happen, and much too often.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

[LadyForCamus]

Haha, no person of faith here!  IMO, providing a murderer with an opportunity to express -anything- is more of an opportunity than he afforded his victims.  Maybe prison is punishment; or maybe it's a place to get a college education.  To me, the ultimate price to pay for sadistically taking life is to forfeit one's own life.  People like that have no business maintaining a pulse.

Funny how people who don't believe in a god talk as if they had god-like ability to decide who is innocent and who is guilty. While I'm willing to bet all that there is no god, there's a much better chance than this that the next person to be executed in America will be innocent of the crime he or she was convicted of. In fact, there is quite a rich history of people whose convictions were overturned posthumously. Too many for my stomach, which is why I won't get behind any legislation which doesn't prohibit this.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/14/us/25-...finds.html

Hey, that's why I said it was my personal, emotional feeling on the subject, not my well reasoned argument for it with consideration for all the available evidence. [emoji849] Innocent people being executed is obviously a problem. I'm saying I am not morally opposed to serial killers being put to death, and in fact I believe they deserve it.

The article you linked to was from 1985. Have we made any progress toward decreasing the number of innocent people sentenced since then?

[LadyForCamus]

Funny how people who don't believe in a god talk as if they had god-like ability to decide who is innocent and who is guilty. While I'm willing to bet all that there is no god, there's a much better chance than this that the next person to be executed in America will be innocent of the crime he or she was convicted of. In fact, there is quite a rich history of people whose convictions were overturned posthumously. Too many for my stomach, which is why I won't get behind any legislation which doesn't prohibit this.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/14/us/25-...finds.html

Hey, that's why I said it was my personal, emotional feeling on the subject, not my well reasoned argument for it in consideration of all the available evidence. [emoji849] Innocent people being executed is obviously a problem. I'm saying I am not morally opposed to serial killers being put to death, and in fact I believe they deserve it.

The article you linked to was from 1985. Have we made any progress toward decreasing the number of innocent people sentenced since then?

[LadyForCamus]

Double post, sorry.

[Reforged]

True. Less chance of happening though.

When that's the answer every time the right solution to any problem is suggested, then what are the chances of the right actions ever being done?

About the same. 0.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Funny how people who don't believe in a god talk as if they had god-like ability to decide who is innocent and who is guilty. While I'm willing to bet all that there is no god, there's a much better chance than this that the next person to be executed in America will be innocent of the crime he or she was convicted of. In fact, there is quite a rich history of people whose convictions were overturned posthumously. Too many for my stomach, which is why I won't get behind any legislation which doesn't prohibit this.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/14/us/25-...finds.html

Hey, that's why I said it was my personal, emotional feeling on the subject, not my well reasoned argument for it with consideration for all the available evidence. [emoji849] Innocent people being executed is obviously a problem.  I'm saying I am not morally opposed to serial killers being put to death, and in fact I believe they deserve it.  

The article you linked to was from 1985.  Have we made any progress toward decreasing the number of innocent people sentenced since then?

1985 was before Texas and a few other states became infamous for rushing the death penalty, therefore I believe the antiquity of the article and the relative short span from the 1973 SCOTUS decision which allowed this says plenty without any follow-up. Nevertheless, my more recent post links to a comprehensive, and probably more up-to-date Wiki article, lots of data there.

[MTL]

I'd rather die than have a life sentence with no chance of parole,
unless I knew I was innocent and there was a chance new evidence might come to light to exonerate me,
but by the time science advances enough to show new evidence,
a decade or more may pass.

Also, I think there are instances where violent crimes do not deserve the death penalty as much as some non-violent crimes.

For instance, a doctor who calculatedly betrays trust and knowingly causes disease or irreparable disability
or great suffering, to many people, for the sake of personal gain, to me,

deserves death,

...more than a man who pulls a gun and kills his daughter's rapist, in a rage...you see?

I've also heard of cases where deeply disturbed, extremely violent pedos, rapists, and murderers
have asked for death, and warned authorities to never set them free.

If a person is deranged, and has no control over their violent impulses, and the inside of their head is a living hell,
and keeping them alive in prison is doing nothing other than prolonging their suffering
and costing the public tax dollars....you may as well at least give them the option of assisted suicide.

I think that's less barbaric than letting them suffer.

But I'm painting in broad strokes;
the possible variables from case to case are endless.

There will always be the risk of innocents dying,
and there's just no way that will ever be acceptable;

but I think that the cold hard reality is that if most of us saw what life is really like in some of those places,
and we saw how much worse prison is made, for the non-violent criminals,
by keeping some of the monsters alive,
it would be a wake-up call.

I don't know...something tells me that it's easy to sit comfortably in our homes
discussing lofty ideals about the sanctity of human life,

but when contrasted against the reality of life in those places,
it might seem like a really bad joke.