http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...yers-argue.html

 

One of the more interesting bits:

 

The Death Penalty Information Centre, a non-profit group critical of the punishment, says 138 prisoners sentenced to death in the US have been exonerated since 1973, 12 of these in Texas.

 

Do the right thing please, America.

 

Map of death penalty in states currently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_pe...ited_States.svg

Edited December 7, 201015 yr by Krezack

That's supposed to be green?

Sometimes the death penalty is the just penalty. Sometimes it is not.

Sometimes the death penalty is the just penalty. Sometimes it is not.

Almond Joys have nuts. Mounds don't. Because...

I'm against it, I used to be for it.

Me too.

Krez, have you fallen for some left wing chick or something? You've been like an avalanche recently...

Krez, have you fallen for some left wing chick or something? You've been like an avalanche recently...

 

I've been hanging around a lot of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists for the past few years now, and while I argue with them quite often about economics (I'm economically centrist - I'm a huge fan of evidence-based policy and loathe the central planning tendencies of socialists as much as I loathe the completely laissez faire approach of libertarians), we almost always agree that impingement on civil liberties is a universally bad idea. My environmentalist friends are also all strong civil libertarians (actually pretty much everyone I know from my generation is).

 

So I don't think this is anything new. I've just become more vocal about it lately.

 

What I have a problem with regarding the death penalty is: a) risk of error, b) I value humaneness, and I believe the alternative is more humane - life sentencing, and c) it's government-sanctioned murder - it's a government deciding who is and is not worthy of living, and we've seen multiple times in the past the government has gotten this one wrong.

 

As a final point, it's hard for the West to pressure China about its human rights abuses (in this case the huge number of people it executes each year) when the premier Western super-power is still executing people (even if those people tend to be far less controversial - murderers rather than political dissidents and tax evaders).

 

Krez, have you fallen for some left wing chick or something? You've been like an avalanche recently...

 

Also, this isn't strictly true, as left-wing chicks fall for me first. And the physical sciences kind, not the liberal arts kind. Can't really hold a conversation about science too well with that lot.

Edited December 8, 201015 yr by Krezack

Krezy, your point about China is rendered void by one little fact: as a rule of thumb, we only execute murderers, who quite frankly deserve it (Newton's Third Law, remember?). China, however, executes anyone who breathes too loudly.

If you can watch Paradise Lost (1996) and still think the death penalty hasn't made murderers out of us all a hundred times already you're brain damaged.

b) I value humaneness, and I believe the alternative is more humane - life sentencing

The problem with arguing "humanity" of punishments is that you can always declare lighter punishment more humane.

You can easily argue that life sentence is not as humane as 40 years imprisonment.

Krezy, your point about China is rendered void by one little fact: as a rule of thumb, we only execute murderers, who quite frankly deserve it (Newton's Third Law, remember?). China, however, executes anyone who breathes too loudly.

 

The problem is that the US doesn't just execute murderers. They execute those that have been found guilty of murder. However, there has been situations where, after the accused has already been executed, it is later shown that the accused was in fact innocent. Whoops.

 

Executing prisoners is also more expensive than life sentencing, believe it or not.

Krezy, your point about China is rendered void by one little fact: as a rule of thumb, we only execute murderers, who quite frankly deserve it (Newton's Third Law, remember?). China, however, executes anyone who breathes too loudly.

 

The problem is that the US doesn't just execute murderers. They execute those that have been found guilty of murder. However, there has been situations where, after the accused has already been executed, it is later shown that the accused was in fact innocent. Whoops.

 

Executing prisoners is also more expensive than life sentencing, believe it or not.

This. Also the DNA project has been going through death rows and checking the dna evidence in the cases there and finds quite a few discrepancies between what was said to happen and what did happen.

I'd call that a problem with criminal justice altogether. I'm kind of a fan of the notion of innocents not being in jail at all, let alone executed.

Edited December 8, 201015 yr by Tale

Death sentence doesn't need to go, it is the justice system that needs to be improved.

Death sentence doesn't need to go, it is the justice system that needs to be improved.

 

Unless you feel that the justice system will ever become flawless (I'm not holding my breath), then supporting the death sentence means you're okay with the occasional innocent person being executed.

I agree the US justice system needs reform, and I imagine that will naturally lead to getting rid of the death penalty. Isn't it already abolished in about 15 states?

 

The odd thing is there are very few executions, particularly given the amount of prisoners in the penal system and even the amount convicted of murder. It is an extremely small percentage. So why do it? Is it really effective? Sure, a part of me says it is justice, eye for an eye type stuff. A part of me also enjoys reading Punisher comic books too, but that doesn't mean I really want a bunch of vigilantes running around killing hoodlums.

Death sentence doesn't need to go, it is the justice system that needs to be improved.

 

Unless you feel that the justice system will ever become flawless (I'm not holding my breath), then supporting the death sentence means you're okay with the occasional innocent person being executed.

And being against the death penalty means you are ok with any further murders against prison guards and other inmates. The death penalty isn't just handed out to every murder... it requires 'aggravating circumstances'.

 

Saying 'then supporting the death sentence means you're okay with the occasional innocent person being executed.' is like saying you are ok with alcohol consumption even though 40,000 people a year are killed by drunk drivers.

Death sentence doesn't need to go, it is the justice system that needs to be improved.

 

Unless you feel that the justice system will ever become flawless (I'm not holding my breath), then supporting the death sentence means you're okay with the occasional innocent person being executed.

And being against the death penalty means you are ok with any further murders against prison guards and other inmates. The death penalty isn't just handed out to every murder... it requires 'aggravating circumstances'.

 

Saying 'then supporting the death sentence means you're okay with the occasional innocent person being executed.' is like saying you are ok with alcohol consumption even though 40,000 people a year are killed by drunk drivers.

 

Was this post deliberately meant to lack logic?

The death penalty isn't just handed out to every murder... it requires 'aggravating circumstances'.

 

I'm well aware of the circumstances regarding the death penalty (note: your link only applies specifically to Kentucky btw). I'm also well aware of the levels of corruption that exist at varying levels of the judicial system. Ambitious people looking to make careers for themselves and jaded individuals that utilize bias. And unless you somehow remove the human element from the judicial system, this isn't going to go away.

 

 

And being against the death penalty means you are ok with any further murders against prison guards and other inmates.

 

LOL are you serious? Grasping at straws now aren't we. You do understand that a death row inmate is NOT executed shortly after sentencing, right? Is a death row inmate suddenly less able to go around killing prison guards and other inmates simply because he's on death row and not just imprisoned for a life sentence? Or is it that in the later years of their life sentence that these people are now demonstrably more murderous and hostile than the would be in the early years of their imprisonment?

 

 

Supporting the death penalty in the real world means accepting that people WILL be killed by the government that DO NOT deserve it. I am never one to give the government that kind of power. I would support the death penalty if the justice system was actually immaculate. But it's not. And it's never going to be. The biggest difference with a government sanctioned execution and someone dying from a drunk driver is that one is an accident, the other is intentional.

 

The death penalty has no noticeable effect on the rates of violent crimes (in fact, the US states with the death penalty have the highest rates of murder in the United States) so it doesn't appear to have any effect via deterrence. Life without parole has also been shown to be significantly cheaper due to the lack of extensive appeal process that, in my opinion, is required if you wish to enforce capital punishment.

I like the bit in The Silence of the Lambs where Lecter, in return for information, is offered a new cell on a chemically-contaminated island facility, and an hour's outdoor exercise a day.

 

"In a truly civilized country," says Lecter to Starling, staring around his underground dungeon, "you'd execute me."

 

Krezack and other navel-gazing, priviledged liberals always fail to grasp the uncomfortable nettle that monsters roam amongst us and that the most appropriate way of dealing with some of them is to take them out of the gene pool. Krezack and his ilk also think that their bleeding hearts trump the wishes of the victim's of violent crimes and their families.

 

My view is that the US has checks and balances and a death row appeal system. If they wish to have the death penalty that's there business and wailing from foreign countries is unlikely to change their minds. China, OTOH and Iran and all the usual suspects do not have checks and balances. Execution is part of the tool-box for maintaining the regime. You can't say that about the USA.

Krezack and other navel-gazing, priviledged liberals always fail to grasp the uncomfortable nettle that monsters roam amongst us and that the most appropriate way of dealing with some of them is to take them out of the gene pool. Krezack and his ilk also think that their bleeding hearts trump the wishes of the victim's of violent crimes and their families.

 

People like you actually think that what the victim's of violent crimes and their families need is the execution of someone in order to determine some sort of closure. The fact of it is that death row forces these people to not move on because the appeal process (through the checks and balances you yourself mention) because the issue is never over as long as that person remains on death row.

 

But hey, some screenwriter felt that Anthony Hopkins should state his line. Far be it for me to let you berate some people as being bleeding heart liberals (which I laughably am not) when you decide to start quoting Hollywood. I certainly wouldn't call Guard Dog a bleeding heart liberal. Life imprisonment DOES take them out of the gene pool. And it does it at a cheaper cost than the death penalty.

Life imprisonment DOES take them out of the gene pool. And it does it at a cheaper cost than the death penalty.

 

If the USA manages to make a length of rope, or a bullet or a syringe more expensive than the admin then that's their business but not particularly efficient.

 

Incidentally, my post wasn't aimed at all of you. Mainly Krezzie, bless him, whose adolescent liberalism always seems to grip my turd.

Edited December 8, 201015 yr by Monte Carlo

I'm well aware of the circumstances regarding the death penalty (note: your link only applies specifically to Kentucky btw). I'm also well aware of the levels of corruption that exist at varying levels of the judicial system. Ambitious people looking to make careers for themselves and jaded individuals that utilize bias. And unless you somehow remove the human element from the judicial system, this isn't going to go away.

This works both ways. Perhaps everyone who is tried for a murder should be kept in prison even if found innocent. There might have been some corruption involved with the defense.

 

LOL are you serious? Grasping at straws now aren't we. You do understand that a death row inmate is NOT executed shortly after sentencing, right? Is a death row inmate suddenly less able to go around killing prison guards and other inmates simply because he's on death row and not just imprisoned for a life sentence? Or is it that in the later years of their life sentence that these people are now demonstrably more murderous and hostile than the would be in the early years of their imprisonment?

 

 

Supporting the death penalty in the real world means accepting that people WILL be killed by the government that DO NOT deserve it. I am never one to give the government that kind of power. I would support the death penalty if the justice system was actually immaculate. But it's not. And it's never going to be. The biggest difference with a government sanctioned execution and someone dying from a drunk driver is that one is an accident, the other is intentional.

 

The death penalty has no noticeable effect on the rates of violent crimes (in fact, the US states with the death penalty have the highest rates of murder in the United States) so it doesn't appear to have any effect via deterrence. Life without parole has also been shown to be significantly cheaper due to the lack of extensive appeal process that, in my opinion, is required if you wish to enforce capital punishment.

Grasping as much as you. That an innocent MIGHT be executed is reason enough to abolish the death penalty, the fact murderes can and do commit more murders and may even escape in a prison break is as much of an excuse to execute them.

 

An interesting article.

"A recent study at the University of Colorado, for instance, finds "a statistically significant relationship between executions, pardons, and homicide. Specifically, each additional execution reduces homicides by five to six." A paper by three Emory University economists concludes: "Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect... In particular, each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10."

 

Comparable results have been reached by scholars at the University of Houston, SUNY Buffalo, Clemson, and the Federal Communications Commission. All these studies have been published within the past three years. And all of them underscore an inescapable bottom line: The execution of murderers protects innocent life."

 

The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down. - poet Hyman Barshay

Life imprisonment DOES take them out of the gene pool. And it does it at a cheaper cost than the death penalty.

 

If the USA manages to make a length of rope, or a bullet or a syringe more expensive than the admin then that's their business but not particularly efficient.

 

Incidentally, my post wasn't aimed at all of you. Mainly Krezzie, bless him, whose adolescent liberalism always seems to grip my turd.

 

Nice attempt at pigeon-holing me, but the death penalty is an apolitical issue mate. Got anything else besides scientific fallacies about genetics?