quote:

---

Originally posted by saulphx:
I am very much against the death penalty, although I realize that would probably change if a loved one were the victim. That's why lawmakers need to be objective and focus on society as a whole rather than on themselves.

Here are some reasons:

* Two wrongs don't make a right; killing people doesn't solve anything;

* By the time they get killed, the cost of the appeal process they go through is far more than the cost of housing them for the rest of their lives.

* The United States is one of the few nations of the world that still has this barbaric penalty. The "leader of the world" should set a better example.

* But hard labor isn't a good enough punishment for these people. Their lives should be a _living hell_

---

It's not about "solving" anything. The only legitimate question is if it deserved for the crime of taking a life. You should not have the right to "solve" anything if it is not deserved, and the fact that nothing may be solved is irrelivent if it is deserved. It should only be a matter of justice, and nothing more.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Def for.

"while other states are trying to eliminate the death penalty, my states putting in a fast lane"-blue collar comedy tour.

*Im new and plan to smoke every brand I see*

only if they were public and gruesome and the jury had to deliever the punushment, mandatory attendance also so that people would have to see what taking a life is and show them rather than tell them an abstract idea of a death penalty, the purposee would be to prove that it is to detour crime. as mow it is worthless as a means of keeping vio,ent crime down. I think public sentiment on the issue would change if they were confronted with it.
Prisons were built for reform and re-educating, and not as a socialist housing system for the criminals. we spend more money per inmate a year than we spend in the education of a student per year. then the criminals that do get released usually go back to crime, as they hear "who is gonna hire a criminal" so often it becomes a mamtra for them and they believe it and the cycle continues. Education is thre j=key for both the criminal and the employers, some people do actually make stupid mistakes when they are young or yjry get busted for drugs(which i against the use of drugs, i am also against incarcerating them for using a substance that big business forced Congress to create laws for so alcohol and drug factories(pharma companies} could make all the money,)

The Eternal Marxist

For it...I agree with Silverzone 100%

For it!

Don't let em' live - (but just be damn sure!)

"I've got a fever baby, and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL" - Christopher Walkin

For it...
Speed up the conveyer belt...
and make it public!

When I was younger and more simple minded, I was for the death penalty.

but for the last 15 years I've been pretty much against it. Both positions have been more or less defended well on this post

My biggest concerns about the death penalty are:
1. that our justice system isn't perfect, which means that the potential exists for putting to death an innocent person.

2. It's not much of a deterrant

3. It's cheaper to hold someone in prison for life than it is to put them to death.

4. But the #1 reason why I am actually for the penalty is because I live in the Northwest where I grew up living with the specter of the Green River Killer. Ridgeway has admitted to killing 48 women, but the number is probably in the upper sixties.

We only had evidence that he killed 2. Our State Attorney decided to negotiate with Ridgeway by removing the chance of the death penality on the condition that he answer every question about murders he commited in the county.

I believe Ridgeway did to the best of his ability. Instead of giving 2 families closure, the *threat* of the death penality gave some closure to 48 families. And to top it off, Ridgeway will probably catch a shiv sooner or later.

-----------------
Conservatives and Liberals typically think the world would be better off without the other. Both, however, serve as checks and balances of each; of the 2 camps, it appears the liberals are more accepting of this truth.
-----------------

For it in "open & shut" cases or voluntary confessions. (ie: Timothy McVeigh)

The problem with our death penalty as a deterrent is the crime is committed 20-30 years before the final "stay" is lifted !! I just read in today's paper a convict killed & raped an 86 year old women and stole her tv set. They found him with the tv set and the DNA matches the sex offense. Like dealing with a rabid dog, society must rid itself of this disease. But the Liberals will say "society" made him that way and he needs rehabilitation. I say keep Ole Sparky alive and fry em faster than McDonalds can .

"To much work, not enough play"

quote:

---

But the Liberals will say "society" made him that way and he needs rehabilitation.

---

Smart liberals and Smart Conservatives would say that it's not just one or the other, society or nature that "made him." It's usually both.

Really Smart Liberals would say that God made him that way.

-----------------
Conservatives and Liberals typically think the world would be better off without the other. Both, however, serve as checks and balances of each; of the 2 camps, it appears the liberals are more accepting of this truth.
-----------------

I guess all of you (me included) who were in favor of the death penalty saw the post from the nitwit from Seattle who said that we are all "simple-minded."
To his four reasons, I respond:
1. Duh! Sure, the potential will always exist to put to death an innocent person...but only about a billion to one...I'd rather an innocent person be put to death, than 100 guilty go free (to murder again).
2. It sure is a deterrent to the dirtbag put to death...and if done quicker and in public would be more of a deterrent to others
3. The only reason its more expensive is the way we draw it out with endless trials, appeals, etc. A quick .45 to the back of the head is very inexpensive
4. Closure to family members of those killed...comes more from knowing that the person responible has met their justice.

I am all for it as long as it is for white guys from Texas who committ large-scale corporate fraud.

Otherwise I am not really for it.

It is what it is - till it aint

quote:

---

Originally posted by mlbrooks@carolina.rr.com:
I guess all of you (me included) who were in favor of the death penalty saw the post from the nitwit from Seattle who said that we are all "simple-minded."

---

Character attacks usually come from simple minded people. Thanks for following through
Besides, I never said that you were all simple minded; I was just reflecting how how my ideas have evolved. But the nice thing about these forums is that it's okay to be defensive. Let it out man.

quote:

---

To his four reasons, I respond:
1. Duh! Sure, the potential will always exist to put to death an innocent person...but only about a billion to one...I'd rather an innocent person be put to death, than 100 guilty go free (to murder again).

---

Unfortunately, we don't really know the probability of the chance of putting someone to death who is innocent. And that really is beside the point. The point is whether or not the government should have that power to take a life if there is even a slight chance of getting it wrong. We all know that the gov't can take personal property, right? But only if there is "fair" compensation. Even under fair compensation, most of us would fight tooth and nail before we let the gov't take our property. Some would argue that the gov't should never even have this right, and this is simply for property. And you want to give this ability of delivering state sanctioned death to a gov't?

quote:

---

2. It sure is a deterrent to the dirtbag put to death...and if done quicker and in public would be more of a deterrent to others

---

the quicker the better in terms of it being a detterant is absolutely correct. Punishment works best when there is little delay between the act and the punishment, but the delay is necessary to prevent the gov't from having the power to become the nazis.

quote:

---

3. The only reason its more expensive is the way we draw it out with endless trials, appeals, etc. A quick .45 to the back of the head is very inexpensive

---

again, you are right that the expense lies in the delay, but again, unless you want an all powerful government, due process, quite frankly, is your friend.

quote:

---

4. Closure to family members of those killed...comes more from knowing that the person responible has met their justice.

---

Says you. I call that type of "closure" revenge, which comes from not knowing how to deal with anger and loss.

And in the case of the green river killer, most of the victim's families didn't know for certain that it was in fact ridgeway who killed their daughters. So, we would have gone through a long trial, ridgeway would have been found guilty, but only for killing 1 or 2 women. The rest would have to wonder if he is the one who took their family away. With the death penalty as a negotiating chip, 48 families knew. not just 2.

Furthermore, there are people who thought they'd feel better after the murderer of their child was put to death. They didn't. So to assume that everyone would experience closure is just wrong.

-----------------
Conservatives and Liberals typically think the world would be better off without the other. Both, however, serve as checks and balances of each; of the 2 camps, it appears the liberals are more accepting of this truth.
-----------------

[This message was edited by tyshubrick on October 17, 2004 at 01:27 PM.]

The punishement should fit the crime.

Fry 'em

Save the taxpayers money. Heck prisoners get better care and living conditions then our military does. Anyone else think thats a problem?

A few years ago they had thought of taking old navy ships and putting them off-shore and housing people in there....it was considering "in-humane" uhhh...what do you think the US Navy does?

I am intelectually for,
practically against.

Personally, my maternal grandmother was
murdered (long before I was born). If I recall correctly he was the last man executed in KY.

As an attorney, I have seen the effect that a poor state (WV and KY) looking to save money can have on the quality of justice meted out to the poor. Don't think for one minute that the resources given the PD come anywhere near those given the Prosecutor's office. and guess whose budget will get cut first? Hmmmmmmm, which is more politically expedient? Look at the coments in this thread and you have your answer.

Public defenders paid less than Asst Mgrs. of a McDonald's with even less chance for promotion.
Even appointed counsel when the PD is conflicted out are usually very inexperienced and outgunnned. In WV, Once you get past the first $3000.00 in fees for a murder trial, the rate you are paid to run your office on drops to $22.50 per hour. If this were your salary, it woudl be a living wage. Unfortunately, the lawyer must still pay his overhead. In most even small offices, $22.50 per hour does not cover the overhead. (Back about 10 years ago, the fees were capped at $3000.00 max., that was finally found so ridiculous as to be unconstitutional)

Unfortunately EVERY SINGLE STUDY of the death penalty has found uniformly that Judges and Juries administer it unfairly.

Men are executed 10 times as often as women (even controlling for the lowerr # of women defendants)

Blacks are executed many times more often than whites

Poor people across the board are executed much more often than the rich.

I'm sorry, but there is a big enough chance of an innocent person being convicted, as well as a big enough chance (heck, it's a certainty, given the above stats) that the death penalty can and will be administered unfairly that I must, for now, shelve my intellectual and emotional bias in favor of the death penalty, and advocate against it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by stapletonj:
I am intelectually for,
practically against.

---

I could agree with this quite easily.

And I'm sorry to hear about your g-ma.

I am in favor of capital punishment for first degree murder and where death resulted during the commission of a felony.

It was a deterrent years ago when people got caught, tried, and if convicted, hung in public the next day. That made people think twice.

I do feel that everyone convicted should have access to all available appeals; however, it should not take 20 years to do so.

Appeals for death-penalty cases should be expedited.

We should also ensure that DNA evidence is used on all cases.

After all this has been done, we need to have a specific day set up, say, the first Wednesday of every month. Then, line up everyone who is due to be executed outside the room, with a simple sign over the door that reads "NEXT".


Someone mentioned extending it for rape. You have to be extra careful. Look what happened with Kobe Bryant.

-----------------
Yes. I AM a pig.

I am for the death penalty...In collage I had an exam and one of the essay questions was about the death penalty (simular to this)...I simply wrote "kill them all and let God sort it out"..the professor loved it...and that came from a liberal collage...

Piss on me once ...that's your fault...Piss on me twice that's my fault....

Ok, so death penality is a bit severe in a rape case <Personally I'd say it's not severe enough in the case where the vitcim was a child, but that's me>. So take the convicted rapist, bring them to a nice wooden shack, nail their privates to a board, give them a wooden spoon and set the building on fire. If they make it out they can live, then put 'em in a jail cell.

Alan

<Hey, it's just a thought!>

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein

Why is it harsh for rape?
If you kill someone, yes they're dead and missed out on the rest of their life. Their family and friends suffer the most.
If you rape someone, not only does the family and friends feel the burden, the person that was violated has to live with that the rest of their life. You have to admit a few years in jail/prision is not suitable, which is what most get.

If not the death penalty at least castrate the S.O.B.

""GO BUCKEYES!"

JRod, you missed the sarcasm when I said that. Reread what I wrote.

*grin*

Alan

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein