Is common sense starting to prevail in America regarding the death penalty?

[Moose]

I guess we should bring back public hangings if that's the intent.

[Pidesco]

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."

[/i]

 

The links for those studies are dead.

 

Of the 875 prisoners executed in the United States in modern times, not one has been retroactively proved innocent.

 

Also, this statement on that opinion piece you linked to is dead.

 

Furthermore,

In particular, each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10

 

this is a pretty huge margin of error, and I have no clue how they reached that figure of 18 fewer murders per execution. Is there a scientifically well defined pool of potential murders that are deterred against by various factors? What?

[Guard Dog]

Here is great case against the DP. There is a girl in Orlando who murdered her daughter, put here in a plastic bag and sank her into a pond. She did it so she would be free to go out and do drugs with her friends. The State is seeking the DP and the evidence in the case makes a guilty verdict all but a lock. But because it is a DP case is has been bogged down for years in pretrial hearings and haggling. If the DP was off the table she would have been tried, convicted, and locked away, probably for life w/o parole by now. Because it IS a dp trial the state has to pay part of the cost of her defense even though she has private counsel, to say nothing of the costs incurred in proving a DP case. Just take the whole damned thing off the table and lock these people up for life and be done with it.

 

I really think the US should adopt Truth-in-Sentencing laws. In other words no parole for violent offenders, if you get a five year sentence you WILL do all five, and if you get a life sentence then you will only leave that prison in a body bag.

[Volourn]

"then supporting the death sentence means you're okay with the occasional innocent person being executed."

 

Complete and utter bull with no basis in the real world.

 

 

 

"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."

 

Well said. Nonsense, sometimes, needs to be responded to with more nonsense.

 

Being pro DP for murderers does not mean you are okay with DP for innocents. Are you on crack?

Edited December 8, 2010 by Volourn

[Walsingham]

For me, the death penalty rests on the fundamental evil involved in some crimes. Go delve into the case files until you've been physically sick at least once, then come back and tell me the death penalty isn't OK. Statistics be damned.

[I want teh kotor 3]

For me, the death penalty rests on the fundamental evil involved in some crimes. Go delve into the case files until you've been physically sick at least once, then come back and tell me the death penalty isn't OK. Statistics be damned.

 

I'm with you on this one.

[Humodour]

For me, the death penalty rests on the fundamental evil involved in some crimes. Go delve into the case files until you've been physically sick at least once, then come back and tell me the death penalty isn't OK. Statistics be damned.

 

This is a logical fallacy.

 

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

[Aram]

Of the 875 prisoners executed in the United States in modern times, not one has been retroactively proved innocent.

Also, this statement on that opinion piece you linked to is dead.

Either way it doesn't matter. You don't punish someone because you can't prove them innocent--only if you can prove them guilty. Otherwise you let them go. And courts rarely actually do prove a person is guilty--they just convince twelve random boobs that they are. It is not remotely unusual for people, even groups of twelve people, to be extremely wrong about something. It's the best we have, so we have to use it, but its so much safer to lock them up then to kill them for it. You can let a person go 20 years later and that's bad enough, but you're never going to resurrect someone. Obviously there are cases where there is no doubt whatsover, but you can't create a 100% reliable system for sorting these from the rest on a government level.

 

For me, the death penalty rests on the fundamental evil involved in some crimes. Go delve into the case files until you've been physically sick at least once, then come back and tell me the death penalty isn't OK. Statistics be damned.

This is exactly what is wrong with the death penalty. It's not just logically flawed, it's something extremely dangerous. If you show a jury something that bad and stir up all of their emotions to a degree they can't handle, they'll convict any poor bastard that gets stood in front of them. They focus so much on the crime they don't look at the validity of the evidence. You can't turn emotional response into a reliable system of any kind, certainly not the kind that murders innocent people if it makes a mistake.

 

You show me any crime you want -- add on the wrong person being charged and killed for it, and that's a crime a thousand times more sickening.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Aram

[Orogun01]

For me, the death penalty rests on the fundamental evil involved in some crimes. Go delve into the case files until you've been physically sick at least once, then come back and tell me the death penalty isn't OK. Statistics be damned.

 

This is a logical fallacy.

 

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

It's a human fallacy, not all of us are made of pure logic.

[Humodour]

For me, the death penalty rests on the fundamental evil involved in some crimes. Go delve into the case files until you've been physically sick at least once, then come back and tell me the death penalty isn't OK. Statistics be damned.

 

This is a logical fallacy.

 

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

It's a human fallacy, not all of us are made of pure logic.

 

We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

[pmp10]

We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

No, we really shouldn't.

That's the part that makes us human.

Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical.

Edited December 9, 2010 by pmp10

[Humodour]

We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

No, we really shouldn't.

That's the part that makes us human.

Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical.

 

Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort*

 

Also, to prevent any confusion, that was meant to read: "We can, and should, expect the law to be so, however." I don't expect any single human to be hyper-rational. I expect the collection of humans we call 'society' and 'government' to always aspire to this, however - an independent, unemotional judicial process is absolutely key to a just, free society.

[Zoraptor]

We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

No, we really shouldn't.

The whole point of a justice system is to avoid, so far as possible, emotion and rushes to judgement and to use, so far as possible, logic and proof in a considered manner.

[Orogun01]

We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

No, we really shouldn't.

That's the part that makes us human.

Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical.

 

Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort*

 

Also, to prevent any confusion, that was meant to read: "We can, and should, expect the law to be so, however." I don't expect any single human to be hyper-rational. I expect the collection of humans we call 'society' and 'government' to always aspire to this, however - an independent, unemotional judicial process is absolutely key to a just, free society.

So you would deny a grieving individual closure on a tragic part of their lives? Maybe it does not bring back loved ones but i'm pretty sure that seeing the execution brings a little peace to the aggrieved, specially when the crime it's particularly heinous. This is in a large part an emotional issue not just logical.

[Humodour]

We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

No, we really shouldn't.

That's the part that makes us human.

Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical.

 

Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort*

 

Also, to prevent any confusion, that was meant to read: "We can, and should, expect the law to be so, however." I don't expect any single human to be hyper-rational. I expect the collection of humans we call 'society' and 'government' to always aspire to this, however - an independent, unemotional judicial process is absolutely key to a just, free society.

So you would deny a grieving individual closure on a tragic part of their lives? Maybe it does not bring back loved ones but i'm pretty sure that seeing the execution brings a little peace to the aggrieved, specially when the crime it's particularly heinous. This is in a large part an emotional issue not just logical.

 

Yes, I most definitely would deny them that. They can see a psychiatrist if necessary. Under your scenario, what can somebody who was innocent do once they are executed just because somebody was too emotional to handle rational justice?

[Volourn]

"Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort*

 

Also, to prevent any confusion, that was meant to read: "We can, and should, expect the law to be so, however." I don't expect any single human to be hyper-rational. I expect the collection of humans we call 'society' and 'government' to always aspire to this, however - an independent, unemotional judicial process is absolutely key to a just, free society."

 

You do realize, hilariously, that legally speaking murder is defined as the illegal killing of another human being right? Therefore, legally speaking, the go'vt can't 'murder' anyone. Besdies, it isn't actually the goverment doing it but the courts.

 

The president of the US (or PM of Canada) can't unilaterlaly order the murder of a citizen. That's up to the courts to decide. And, they don't work for the gov't in that way.

[Walsingham]

For me, the death penalty rests on the fundamental evil involved in some crimes. Go delve into the case files until you've been physically sick at least once, then come back and tell me the death penalty isn't OK. Statistics be damned.

 

This is a logical fallacy.

 

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

 

And your logical fallacy is an attempt to fit a non-linear problem into a linear philosophical process.

 

Besides, I've made my terms perfectly clear. Go do as I say, then we can talk. Because I do you the courtesy of recognising that your own standpoint is based just as much on an emotional reaction to wrongful execution.

[Hell Kitty]

Because I do you the courtesy of recognising that your own standpoint is based just as much on an emotional reaction to wrongful execution.

 

You've recognised nothing, you've just made an assumption.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The president of the US (or PM of Canada) can't unilaterlaly order the murder of a citizen. That's up to the courts to decide. And, they don't work for the gov't in that way.

 

Well, actually he can. But it has to be a combatant.

[Orogun01]

We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

No, we really shouldn't.

That's the part that makes us human.

Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical.

 

Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort*

 

Also, to prevent any confusion, that was meant to read: "We can, and should, expect the law to be so, however." I don't expect any single human to be hyper-rational. I expect the collection of humans we call 'society' and 'government' to always aspire to this, however - an independent, unemotional judicial process is absolutely key to a just, free society.

So you would deny a grieving individual closure on a tragic part of their lives? Maybe it does not bring back loved ones but i'm pretty sure that seeing the execution brings a little peace to the aggrieved, specially when the crime it's particularly heinous. This is in a large part an emotional issue not just logical.

 

Yes, I most definitely would deny them that. They can see a psychiatrist if necessary. Under your scenario, what can somebody who was innocent do once they are executed just because somebody was too emotional to handle rational justice?

The courts should be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person it's guilty before executing the death penalty. There are criminals out there that are definitively guilty beyond doubt, they gloat of their "achievements" and have a complete disregard for life.

I get your point, the system it's not perfect but it's still viable in a lot of cases.

[pmp10]

We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

No, we really shouldn't.

That's the part that makes us human.

Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical.

 

Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort*

No.

Stubborn insistence that capital punishment should be treated specially is.

Ultimately no punishment can be guaranteed to be justly declared, you just insist that death penalty should be treated differently for no logical reason.

Edited December 9, 2010 by pmp10

[Gorgon]

There might well be people who deserve to die for their crimes, but government shouldn't exercise that power. We should insist on being better than them, for our own sake.

 

There are all kinds of problems with using the death penalty, it can become politicized so death penalty cases are fast tracked through the appeal process and politicians and politicians to be can appear to be tough on crime, or it can simply be used in totalitarian regimes to remove undesirables. It's not a direction one would want to go in, and besides we can manage without.

[Meshugger]

You guys are asking the wrong questions. Instead it should be

 

- What does society benefit from the death penalty?

- What makes it just?

- Why should the state be lawfully obliged to kill you?

[Humodour]

We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

No, we really shouldn't.

That's the part that makes us human.

Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical.

 

Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort*

 

Also, to prevent any confusion, that was meant to read: "We can, and should, expect the law to be so, however." I don't expect any single human to be hyper-rational. I expect the collection of humans we call 'society' and 'government' to always aspire to this, however - an independent, unemotional judicial process is absolutely key to a just, free society.

So you would deny a grieving individual closure on a tragic part of their lives? Maybe it does not bring back loved ones but i'm pretty sure that seeing the execution brings a little peace to the aggrieved, specially when the crime it's particularly heinous. This is in a large part an emotional issue not just logical.

 

Yes, I most definitely would deny them that. They can see a psychiatrist if necessary. Under your scenario, what can somebody who was innocent do once they are executed just because somebody was too emotional to handle rational justice?

The courts should be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person it's guilty before executing the death penalty. There are criminals out there that are definitively guilty beyond doubt, they gloat of their "achievements" and have a complete disregard for life.

I get your point, the system it's not perfect but it's still viable in a lot of cases.

 

Interesting point you raise. Almost worthy of a thread by itself - certainly it splits this argument into at least two parts. 1) Should we allow the death penalty for heinous crimes we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? or 2) Should we adhere to the universal declaration of human rights without exception.

 

I hold to the latter view.

 

We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

No, we really shouldn't.

That's the part that makes us human.

Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical.

 

Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort*

No.

Stubborn insistence that capital punishment should be treated specially is.

Ultimately no punishment can be guaranteed to be justly declared, you just insist that death penalty should be treated differently for no logical reason.

 

Why not bring in torture for certain crimes too, then? What a bankrupt point you make. Certain punishments most certainly should be considered specially.

[Orogun01]

You guys are asking the wrong questions. Instead it should be

 

- What does society benefit from the death penalty?

- What makes it just?

- Why should the state be lawfully obliged to kill you?

1-Less passion crimes, less criminals on the streets.

 

2-Justice, retribution, seeing someone who wronged you greatly pay the price.

 

3-Because the state handles all judicial matters so it's their responsibility to execute sentences.