Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by redwood973:
I am all for the death penalty. I am for being as sure as one can about the guilt of the condemed before execution. I am all for execution appeals to be limited/restricted so the criminal can't play the system out.

>red-neck mode off<

[This message has been edited by redwood973 (edited 08-29-2001).]</font>

Nice Redwood.

"You say your innocent huh? Well I just think your playing the system off." BANG!

I cant tell if your being sarcastic with your 'Redneck Mode Off' comment, but if you are serious it just makes you and the whole 'Pro-execution' cause look like a poor excuse for a arguement.

IF you are serious, I would like to thank you for winning the anti-execution arguement for us with a poorly constructed and damn childish arguement.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I am for being as sure as one can about the guilt of the condemed before execution. I am all for execution appeals to be limited/restricted so the criminal can't play the system out.</font>

Just though Id repeat that. Thing is. You cant have both. You can either have an expensive lengthy legal process to be sure that the person you are executing is guilty. Well as sure as you can be. Not one person in this debate has disagreed that this process has NEVER been 100% successful, and that somewhere along the line some innocent people have been wrongly convicted and executed.

But you cant be sure if you plan on cutting down the time the guy spends on Death Row. Any cuts on the legal process takes away the certainty that the guy is innocent or guilty.

Problem is, in some cases we'll never know.

This is me signing off. I wont be back as this thread is rehashing the smae old arguements, nothing new to see here!



------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk

[redwood973]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
Just though Id repeat that. Thing is. You cant have both. You can either have an expensive lengthy legal process to be sure that the person you are executing is guilty. Well as sure as you can be. Not one person in this debate has disagreed that this process has NEVER been 100% successful, and that somewhere along the line some innocent people have been wrongly convicted and executed.

But you cant be sure if you plan on cutting down the time the guy spends on Death Row. Any cuts on the legal process takes away the certainty that the guy is innocent or guilty.

</font>

You can have both. It is called the trial. The trial is the most comprehensive examination of evidence. . .it is the stage that you determine (as sure as you can) the guilt of the person.

A review of the trial is a right of the convict. But this is more a review of the proceedure. To ensure that the persons rights were not denied and that trial form was followed. His guilt determined by the comprehensive review of the facts during trial should not be the chief issue of an appeal. This means that appeal after appeal is a waste of time.

So it is possible to have it both ways.

[This message has been edited by redwood973 (edited 08-30-2001).]

[Diamond]

You're overlooking huge issues there Red. You are required to appeal each issue separately. "My defence lawyer was subsequently convicted of falsifying evidence to send his defendants to jail! (I am not making that one up) and "The lab that performed the DNA test that was the major evidence against me was using faulty technology" (nor that one, they're both examples from... wait for it: Texas). Do I get two appeals or do I have to choose which one to stake my life on?

It is not possible to have it both ways. Pay for the legal investegation and time for the truth to come out... or don't, and just assume you never make mistakes and cover over the errors. "Get the trial perfect the first time" is laudable, but not realistic.

[LCM]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mactavish:
LCM, you didn't upset me. You can say whatever you want, this being a free forum and all.

Suffice to say that someone very close to me was the victim of an exceptionally brutal crime several years ago and, despite my unending hatred for the individual in question (who was convicted and sentenced to 15-25 years in a maximum security detention facility), I do not feel morally justified in the execution of that individual, regardless of what that person did.

Now, I would say that the circumstances do justify my position as I have experienced circumstances that forced me to consider such things. While I abhor what happened and felt the personal need to see justice done, I did not at any time desire the death of the criminal at the hands of the state. I can't say that I would have wept at all had that individual been hit by a falling meteor, but I would not wish a planned death on anyone, criminal or innocent, regardless the circumstances.
</font>

By graciously answering me in the face of his own pain, mactavish justifies both his position... and mine.

He can say, as so many cannot (since they haven't had the experience), that the desire for final vengeance wouldn't (and didn't) overwhelm his personal beliefs on the matter--even when it struck close to home, as it did with him.

Of course, the question of whether most of us are as civilized and enlightened as mactavish remains open.

[Joe Dizzy]

Against it.

1. Revenge is not Justice.
2. A killing Government is no better than the people they kill.

That's all I'm gonna say about this.

---
One of the scariest truths in life is that "Everything Can Be Justified."

[mactavish]

Civilized and enlightened? You flatter me.

I think that a point needs reiteration here: I am opposed to the death penalty out of principle. It is not the right of an individual or a government to determine the fate of a human being regarding his/her life and death.

Do I believe that some people are so evil or damaged that death is the best solution for them? No, I don't. Are there times that I would like to see "eye for an eye" justice (like when a young child is gang raped by a bunch of miscreants)? Yes. I do not, however, believe that there is a single crime that warrants state-mandated death.

The United States is a relatively enlightened nation. Certainly we have our problems (i.e. George W. Bush & Co.), but such things pass as a matter of due course. I have a few misgivings about the behavior of my government, and capital punishment happens to fall into that category.

Much as I'd like to dissuade pro-death penalty supoorters from their beliefs, it is not within my power to do so. For that reason, I have decided to debate this issue no longer.

What does it take to change the nature of a man? Tell me that and I'll solve the problems of the world.

mactavish out.

[Evan van Eyk]

What I do not understand is, why should it be right to kill somebody and what purpose serves it?

And do not say punishment. There are other forms of punishment. Life-imprisionment is bad enough and its really hard. imagine to spent 25 years of you life in prison. I think that is intimidating enough.

So why kill people. When they executed the terrorist ( McVain, was his name, right? ) they said it is not possible to let all people watch him die, but relatives where allowed to view him thriugh a window.

So the only purpose seems to be revenge! But revenge creates nothing but pain, hate and it does not set an end to things. The hate stays even if the person is dead and you will find you redemption in it, no rest. Revenge only creates new violence, which is answered by violence again. It ends nothing!

Additionally if revenge is the motive for punishment ( and it obviously is, see above ) then this punishment is actually murder. The definition of murder is a planned action ( punishement is planned ) and/ or out of lower motives ( including revenge ). So that's what they do! they plan to kill him out of revenge. and this is murder, per legal definition.


All man are created equal, with the same rights. One is the right to live and I believe no government or whatever institution may take this rights. And if I am not wrong you find this in the US Constitution ( and normally in all other democratic ones ). Death penalty serves no body it only creates suffering on all sides.

[darkwing duck1]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan van Eyk:
[B]...There are other forms of punishment. Life-imprisionment is bad enough and its really hard. imagine to spent 25 years of you life in prison...</font>

Oh, yes! Free air conditioned/centrally heated housing, three square meals a day, cable tv, a gymnasium, eductional programs, medical care...a heck of a lot more than decent, law abiding people are guaranteed...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">All man are created equal, with the same rights. One is the right to live and I believe no government or whatever institution may take this rights...</font>

The same people who wrote that established that treason was a capital crime. Life is only a right for decent, law abiding people, not murderous, raping scumbags.

I am not only in favor of the Death Penalty, but also in favor of expanding the range of crimes eligible for it (to include rape and robbery, for example). I am also in favor of returning to the older forms of execution (the noose and the firing squad) and for making executions not only public, but mandating universal media coverage of them so society can be assured that justice (and the forfiture of a criminal's life is the ONLY justice for severe crimes) is served, and that the scumbags infesting our society are warned: we will no longer tolerate your presence among us! Reform while you can or die!


------------------
Deo Vindice!

[First of Two]

I see a common misconception that the Death Penalty is (or should be, in some cases) carried out for revenge, bloodthirst, hatred of the criminal, etc.

It is NOT necessary to hate someone in order to kill them. It is simply necessary to make a value judgement.

(Keep in mind that I'm assuming that guilt is PROVEN in my examples, beyond doubt, say, by using DNA, video, or some other method that proves beyond ANY doubt the guilt. I'm AGAINST executing ANYBODY besides this.)

If you have a garden, and you see that weeds are choking the life out of other, productive plants, you pull the weeds and kill them. You don't transplant them to their own little garden and water them and hope they turn into watermelons. You don't pull them out, say 'naughty weed,' and replant them just where they were.

When confronted with a weed, it doesn't require any more consideration than that.

A weed is a threat. It's obvious. Threats are best eliminated, not avoided or put aside.

Yes, I know. 'A human being is not a weed!' True. Human beings are FAR more dangerous. Weeds that destroy do what they do because they MUST, it's what they ARE. Humans that destroy do what they do because they CAN, and WANT to. Keep that in mind. There are very few murderers who didn't choose to kill (there being different degrees of 'murder'). There are NO rapists who didn't choose to rape, or robbers who didn't choose to rob, or bombers who didn't choose to blow people up.

So ultimately, deciding between life and death can be reduced to value: Is this individual, who we know has harmed society, more valuable to that society alive or dead? Alive and contained, they will be a consistent drain on resources which could be better spent caring for the ill, or any other segments of society with the potential to benefit it. If they should rejoin society, their likelihood of becoming productive is vanishingly small (consider that the vast majority of murderers have committed an average of seven other felonies prior to murder).

Dead, they will cease to be a drain on resources fairly quickly. With the proper methods, some of them may even be made useful as 'spare parts' for other productive members of society (much as we may turn weeds into mulch for our garden.)

This is not coldness. It is not cruelty. It is practicality.

Someone I know was severely abused when she was younger. The people who did this are dead now, and have been since before I knew her. If they were alive today, I could kill them. But it wouldn't be out of anger or revenge. I have to know someone before I can hate them. It would simply be a matter of a value judgement, and a matter of insuring that noone else suffered that harm. I could do that with no more pains on my conscience than I get from pulling a weed... or smuushing the mosquito that just landed on my arm.

[Evan van Eyk]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by darkwing duck1:
The same people who wrote that established that treason was a capital crime. Life is only a right for decent, law abiding people, not murderous, raping scumbags.
</font>

Oh, nice, so not all man are created equal. Great! You know what that is? tyranny and dictatorship. One part of the society decides upon who may have human rights and who not. Who are you to decide whether one man may live or not. All people are failable we all have our dark sides. So we all need the mercy of others. Killing a criminal robbs him of the chance to be redeemed ( not in a religious way ). to cope with his guilt and maybe change itself. And even if only one of all this criminals would become a better person I think it is worth the try.


------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de

[Evan van Eyk]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by First of Two:

This is not coldness. It is not cruelty. It is practicality.
</font>

no, it is inhuman and immoral.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by First of Two:

I have to know someone before I can hate them. It would simply be a matter of a value judgement, and a matter of insuring that noone else suffered that harm. I could do that with no more pains on my conscience than I get from pulling a weed... or smuushing the mosquito that just landed on my arm.
</font>

And who are you to decide whether they would harm others or not. They could change themselves.


------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de

[This message has been edited by Evan van Eyk (edited 09-05-2001).]

[Evan van Eyk]

Whenever it comes to the debate over death penalty or not, I remember one scene from the lord of the rings, where Frodo wishes Gollum dead, because he is evil. Gandalf answers:"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

I find that more convincing than anything else I ever read or heard. Maybe you see the point now.

------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de

[dimeboy99]

I'm against the death penalty purely for religious reasons. (wow,what a simple post)

I do think that some crimes are so terrible that the criminal deserves to die. But I think society in general is too fickle of an entity to be able to make that determination.

With that said make no mistake to think that I wouldnt take the law into my own hands if, say, my son was molested/killed and the murderer got away on a legal technicality. Then you bet I believe in the death penalty. I'll pay the price to society for going rogue and I'll pay the price of my faith as well.

[First of Two]

"Oh, nice, so not all man are created equal. Great!"

Not at all. All people are equal at birth in the eyes of the law. It is the choices you make that determine whether you remain so or not. Those who harm society abrogate the protections that living in society provides. They create their own inequality.

"One part of the society decides upon who may have human rights and who not. Who are you to decide whether one man may live or not"

Who are THEY? They, who kill and rape, THEY have the right to decide, but those of us who don't do those things do NOT? Madness!

Society is a body. People are like cells.

When everything is right, all the cells work together, performing whatever function they have, and the body functions as it should.
But if a cell goes rogue, the body rejects it and destroys it. It must, because that one rogue cell can infect others, ruining entire organs and systems. If the body fails to cleanse itself, the body DIES.

[darkwing duck1]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by First of Two:
Not at all. All people are equal at birth in the eyes of the law. It is the choices you make that determine whether you remain so or not. Those who harm society abrogate the protections that living in society provides. They create their own inequality...


Who are THEY? They, who kill and rape, THEY have the right to decide, but those of us who don't do those things do NOT? Madness!

</font>

Exactly, First! Thank You!

If even ONE criminal can be redeemed, it would be worth it, Evan? Tell that to the families and victims of any of the thousands and thousands of victims of these dirtbags who we allowed to continue to exist when we should have put a bullet in their misbegotten heads the first time they stepped over the line.

The cops today spend more time protecting the "rights" of criminals and protecting themselves from suits by criminals than they do protecting the society they are supposed to serve.

If the cops catch someone coming out of a bank with a sack of cash and a gun, he is a bank robber not a "suspect" and they should put a bullet in his head and be done with it! I'm tired of living in a world where decent folk live in fear and criminals game the system to walk away from their crimes...



------------------
Deo Vindice!