Death Penalty

[Roark]

They had no mercy on their victims therefore, I say, let the ******* fry.

Again, do you trust the courts to be 100% accurate in determining if a person is guilty?

 

[Magnus Vile]

Got to be against it, simply because, if you execute the wrong person, once, then you become exactly what you were trying to stop.

But even without that, the death penalty, in the US in particular, has absoultely nothing to reccomend it. It isn't a deterrant, (actually it may increase the likelyhood of murders if US stats are anything to go by) it costs more than life imprisonment, not only due to the extra legal costs asssociated with the appeals process, but also the increased costs of maintaining the conditions on Death Row. And finally in the US the Death Penalty is biased against those without the means to provide their own defence council, which unfortunately mean that minorites are disproportionately represented on death row, and perhaps more importantly, the poor are more likely to find themselves on death row than the rich, even if the crimes were identical.


There really isn't any good reason for executions in a modern country other than vengeance. If that's the reason you want it, then go for it. I'd recommend a minor change to US law though. If a a person is wrongly convicted and executed then everyone involved in the sentencing and execution should be put on death row themselves. Judge, jury, lawers, State Governor and so on.

This would, of course, require changing another aspect of the US legal system. They would have to allow the reopening of DP cases after the sentence is carried out. Currently they don't allow it.

 

[Charlie V]

Arguments against the death penalty from a non-Christian.

1) If one innocent person is killed, that should be enough to not have the death penalty

2) It (likely?) costs more money to execute someone rather than keeping that person in prison for life.. I'm not completely sure where I heard this.. If this is true, I think this is probably the most compelling argument against the death penalty from a practical perspective---

(Quick note: I've been a bit busy, this is my first time back on the boards in a while..)

I agree with these reasons, especially reason #1, and I'd like to add one more.

#3. To gain needed information in the prevention of further crime. There have been cases, for example, in which a convicted person has knowledge about accomplices (sometimes accomplices who continue to commit other crimes of equal or even greater significance!), in which the convicted person, after 5, 10, even 20 or more years behind bars, finally reveals the truth. This sometimes leads to the capture of additional criminals who are still out there committing crimes, including murder!

So by keeping the person alive, further innocent lives can be saved when the information is finally given.

Let me also state for the record, I believe in very tough laws for serious crimes. I believe in life in prison with no possibility of parole for many crimes, and strict controls on prisoners.

Charlie

 

[quatona]

?

A firm and very decisive "against" from me.
There are but very few things for me that I won´t even discuss about anymore - two of them being: going to war and the death penalty.

 

[Btodd]

Aside from the economic factors and the fairness factor, I think it is ridiculous to kill a killer so we can show how wrong killing is. If it's really wrong, let's start from the ground up.


Btodd

 

[franklin]

Again, do you trust the courts to be 100% accurate in determining if a person is guilty?

No I don't trust the courts are 100% accurate but that is not the issue here.

I'm referring to those who are guilty beyond a shadow of doubt of first degree murder who had no mercy on their victims but want mercy on their lives.

One such case I can think of was the brutal lady pick ax murderer here in Texas years ago who became a born again Christian whom anti-death penalty advocates felt shouldn't have been executed. I say, she got what she deserved. I guess she wasn't guilty eh?

Sorry but this is one atheist who is not totally against the death penalty.

 

[Moros]

Capital punishment has two purposes. The first is preventing any possibility of re-offense from a violent criminal who can not be rehabilitated. Life imprisonment does not guarantee against re-offense, nor does it guarantee rehabilitation. The second is deterrence. If executing an individual does not fit in one of the above catergories, then it is wrong. Capital punishment isn't about eye for an eye, or revenge. At least, it shouldn't be.

 

[rebelEnigma]

The death penalty is justice, plain and simple.

Christian - for it

 

[LaserCool]

When a person commits a crime, he violates the rights of another, to life, liberty or property. Living in a society based upon reciprocal recognition of rights, the consequence for the criminal is that he then abdicates his own right to life, liberty or property by that action.

Those who decry the DP seem to have no problem imposing fines or jail time on a criminal, in propotional punishment to the injury he inflicted on his victims. Fines and imprisonment are appropriate abridgements of a person's right to liberty and/or property as punishment for abridging another's rights.

So what makes the death penalty so different? That it is permanent? The victim's death is permanent. That it might be in error? Maybe, but the process for adjudcating a DP case goes through multiple appeals and hearings, to test for the soundness of the verdict and the appropriateness of the DP. It's as near perfect as we can make it.

And what of the victim's families? What satisfaction do they get from a life sentence for the killer? He lives, thier family member doesn't. What kind of justice is that?

It doesn't have to be perfect, no system ever is, but it has to be fair and just.

I voted athiest- pro death penalty

 

[anunbeliever]

I am in favour of the death penalty for the worst kind of criminals. I'm not talking about when a bank robbery goes wrong and a guard is killed. I mean the sickos who torture people and then kill them. They are sociopaths at best and insane at worst. Either way they need to be put down for the safety of society.

 

[Anovah]

It's as near perfect as we can make it.

I demand complete perfection when talking about ending someones life. Since that is an impossiblity, the DP shouldn't be a consideration.

So we "let the ****** fry" as someone else said, and two seconds later we find out...somehow....that we were all wrong. How do you think those victims families will feel if/when they find out they supported the killing of a innocent man? Their family member is dead and so is this guy...for what...a near perfect shot at justice?

 

[Anovah]

No I don't trust the courts are 100% accurate but that is not the issue here.

I respectfully disagree

I'm referring to those who are guilty beyond a shadow of doubt of first degree murder who had no mercy on their victims but want mercy on their lives.

Beyond a shodow of a doubt is different than absolute fact. Could you really imagine yourself saying "I know we killed an innocent man, but at the time we had no doubt he was guilty"

One such case I can think of was the brutal lady pick ax murderer here in Texas years ago who became a born again Christian whom anti-death penalty advocates felt shouldn't have been executed. I say, she got what she deserved. I guess she wasn't guilty eh?

What are you talking about? Being born again doesn't prove your innocence. Exhonorating evidence does.

Sorry but this is one atheist who is not totally against the death penalty.

Then let us hope you are never wrongly accused.

 

[Im_A]

?

Christian-against it

i cannot see how a court on this earth is worth making an infinite judgement for finite crimes. i see more validity in a criminal who is not going to change being put away for life and die in a prison cell then i do the death penalty. sure it may mean that the civilians pay more in taxes, but if the death penalty is brough in favor to reduce tax paying money, that's just sick.

secondly, as a Christian, i do believe that murder is wrong. do we need to constantly make justified exscuses for taking the life of another? if murdering a murderer is right, then we need to just say that evil is nesseccary in this world but yet i thought evil was something that was bad.

i get tired of Christian exscuses for killing. they call it ie justice and this is coming from the very same people that want the courts to do this, but yet they believe that even good actions are worthless but yet scream out for supposed extreme justice for extreme bad actions even if it means to go against a simple command that is within their views.

anyways, without getting in some stupid rhetoric of mine, i'm against the death penalty period, with no hope of being for it.

 

[CSMR]

I am not for or against. In some places I think it should be there, and in others not. It is not really functional in the US - the symbolic and political impact is much more than the direct impact. I am not sure whether I would be for keeping it or not. In other countries such as Singapore I think it works well.

 

[D McCloud]

When a person commits a crime, he violates the rights of another, to life, liberty or property. Living in a society based upon reciprocal recognition of rights, the consequence for the criminal is that he then abdicates his own right to life, liberty or property by that action.

Those who decry the DP seem to have no problem imposing fines or jail time on a criminal, in propotional punishment to the injury he inflicted on his victims. Fines and imprisonment are appropriate abridgements of a person's right to liberty and/or property as punishment for abridging another's rights.

So what makes the death penalty so different? That it is permanent? The victim's death is permanent. That it might be in error? Maybe, but the process for adjudcating a DP case goes through multiple appeals and hearings, to test for the soundness of the verdict and the appropriateness of the DP. It's as near perfect as we can make it.

And what of the victim's families? What satisfaction do they get from a life sentence for the killer? He lives, thier family member doesn't. What kind of justice is that?

It doesn't have to be perfect, no system ever is, but it has to be fair and just.

I voted athiest- pro death penalty

The purpose of our judicial system is not to get even with the criminal. Our judicial systems purpose is to rehabilitate and deter. Two wrongs don't make a right, and just because someone hurts you, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to hurt them for the purpose of their own satisfaction.

However, You are correcting in saying that a victims death is permanent. But so is the death of the killer, and any innocent person executed by mistake in an attempt to get the killer. If you're so concerned about the satisfaction family members get from a killers punishment, then how do you propose the state should satisfy the family members of an innocent person executed? By killing someone else?

Killing doesn't stop killing, it just allows it to continue.

 

[Anovah]

Does anyone realize how many "criminals" have been let free thanks to the invention of DNA testing?

Are we really okay letting those people die to ensure the guilty die too?

A random Yahoo search found this gentelmen some of you would have been happy to execute
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/11/virginia.death.penalty/

 

[listener]

Christian against. I am just not certain that our court system can prove much today. It is not about right and wrong, but how they want to play the game. I know this sounds cynical, but after seeing so many set free when knew evidence exonerates them.... Then there is the flip-side, new evidence show up and the other side wants to exclude it on the grounds that it was not introduce at the right time. This is the scarey part to me; they don't care how good the evidence is, their 'job' is to keep the person behind bars, because that is the rules of the game...........

 

[CSMR]

Does anyone realize how many "criminals" have been let free thanks to the invention of DNA testing?

Are we really okay letting those people die to ensure the guilty die too?

A random Yahoo search found this gentelmen some of you would have been happy to execute
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/11/virginia.death.penalty/

I doubt anyone would want people who have been shown to be innocent to be put to death. Shouldn't better technology which leads to increased accuracy of conviction be something in favour of the death penalty if anything?

 

[franklin]

I respectfully disagree
Beyond a shodow of a doubt is different than absolute fact. Could you really imagine yourself saying "I know we killed an innocent man, but at the time we had no doubt he was guilty"

Maybe my choice of words were wrong but I was actually referring to absolute fact of someones guilt in committing murder. BTW, do you think the man who murdered John Lennon was wrongly convicted? As far as I'm concerned, he should have been put to death 25 years ago. Here it is 25 years later and he thinks he deserves to be allowed back into society. Give me a break. Are you one of those bleeding hearts who thinks he should?

What are you talking about? Being born again doesn't prove your innocence. Exhonorating evidence does.

Oh I know it proves nothing but not according to the religious group that preaches/teaches that doctrine. According to that belief it's as if a person never committed any crime at all and are totally innocent and should be pardoned. Get the picture?

Then let us hope you are never wrongly accused.

The same for you too partner. Actually I think you're just a little bothered of the fact a fellow atheist has no problem with the death penalty. To be honest about all this bleeding heart mentality I keep hearing for all these murderous thugs, I'm kind of sick and tired of all the softness towards these dregs in our society and how they demand they get away with murdering others who didn't deserve it.

I'm glad to see at least one other atheist agrees with me. Lasercool

Maybe you should read his excellent post on the subject in the previous page in this thread. I think he nails it pretty good.

Good post Laser if you're out there.

 

[Shane Roach]

Oh I know it proves nothing but not according to the religious group that preaches/teaches that doctrine. According to that belief it's as if a person never committed any crime at all and are totally innocent and should be pardoned. Get the picture?

As a hardcore atheist, it would be a good idea for you to avoid speaking in the place of people who have beliefs you do not share.

If the judge forgives it, then it is forgiven. The judge gets authority from somewhere. In society, it is derived however the government is constituted. If we are talking about God, it is intrinsic to His position as the almighty. The Bible makes it clear that the proper attitude of the forgiven is grattitude, and a willingness to forgive as they have been forgiven, not a pretense that the wrongdoing is gone and there is a necessity of forgiveness.

This relates to this whole death penalty concept becuase it seems that there is this idea mong many that a person is required to forgive by society. Society can require people not to act on their feelings, but society cannot require someone to forgive, so to argue that the law is ONLY for reformation and that in every case any concept of vengeance us morally reprehensible is in and of itself a moral judgement, and one passed on the victim of the crime, turning the entire legal institution on its ear, and re-victimising in some cases the person who has already suffered at the hands of the criminal.

The justice of the punishment and the problem of wrongful convictions are two separate issues as well. You hear different things, such as that our prisons are like a vacation, or that criminals run them from the inside and that there is a lot of abuse. Whatever the truth is, the bottom line is NO innocent should ever be convicted of ANYTHING. The fact that we have a certain number of people who not only can be shown to have been innocent, but that have been sent up in the face of opportunities the government had to look at new evidence and the like, indicates to me we have many deep systemic problems in our legal system.

The problem with using that idea to try to delegitimize the death penalty is that for those who need that sort of justice, all it does is add a wrong to the wrongs in place already.

God forgave Cain, and marked him so that others would not kill him in vengeance. But later, one of his descendants made this act of mercy out to be a blessing given, and claimed he was blessed many times over for killing many more people. It is this process of beginning to take mercy as a given that tends to lead many, including myself, to believe that it is necessary at all times for people to make it clear that it is perfecly legal and moral, if not the most perfect of all possible worlds, for there to be a death penalty.