How do you feel about Capital Punishment?

posted 20-Jun-2008 1:17am

I'm against it.

posted 20-Jun-2008 1:44am

There are innocent people on death row they could have their DNA done over again to clear their name
yes there are those who have fallen through the cracks in the Justice System and they could be executed
by the state
Capital Punishment should be abolished

posted 20-Jun-2008 1:48am

It should be abolished. If we take all the people out of jail who are not a danger to the public, who have not committed crimes that make them unfit to live amongst us, then there would be plenty of room for people who are dangerous. There's no reason to put them to death.

southernyankee

posted 20-Jun-2008 1:52am

Not strongly one way or the other.

Melf

posted 20-Jun-2008 3:49am

No no no no no.

Biggles

posted 20-Jun-2008 7:27am

I'm 100% opposed to capital punishment.

cloudhugger

posted 20-Jun-2008 7:42am

Is that where the monkey dies?

cloudhugger

posted 20-Jun-2008 7:44am

I am 97.25% against capitol punishment.

dab

posted 20-Jun-2008 7:49am

Sometimes I think I'd want to keep it for people who abuse government power. But that's just an emotional reaction and probably not the best thing.

bill

posted 20-Jun-2008 7:57am

I'm ambivalent. Mostly, I'm pragmatic about it. It seems like killing bad people is an efficient way to deal with the problem. Though, the current system with all the appeals and delays ends up being fairly expensive. I'm convinced that it doesn't deter people from committing crimes, but I just don't like that these people who did terrible things should get any resources from our community chest. I'd rather spend that limited pool of money on projects that benefit people who contribute to society. So, we could streamline the entire process. When they are convicted, shoot them in the head as they walk out of court. Use cheap bullets too.

But, it's never that simple... First, there's the issue of our courts being imperfect. Thus, we can be sure that we will be murdering some innocent people. That really sucks. Though, perhaps I can live with that as a kind of rare statistical anomaly. But, also, there's just the issue of having a state that is in the habit of regularly killing some of its citizens, especially the ones that don't fit in. This is a kind of ultimate power that some states have abused in the past. So, we need to be very careful about granting a power like that. Well, we use the courts which have a lot of checks and balances, so maybe it's OK. But, of course, those checks and balances require a lot of resources (time and money). There goes the streamlining.

On some level, I think we may over-value human life in our modern society. We've become extremely risk-adverse and focused on safety. This is very different from the past and sometimes it seems like it's holding us back. Though, at the same time, we're also much less barbaric than we used to be. Still, a little barbarism keeps us hard, perhaps. We seem very soft these days. We're a culture of mouth-breathers, barely capable of taking care of ourselves, dependent on our government, etc.

I know, I sound like a Nazi. At least I'm willing to admit it.

they

posted 20-Jun-2008 8:54am

I think it should be used on the worst offenders that can not be rehabilitated. People who are a waste of space. People who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The way people languish on death row is annoying and wasteful.

If we're gonna kill them, we should kill them.

Melf

(reply to bill) posted 20-Jun-2008 9:26am

Hmph. That's actually pretty convincing.

they

(reply to bill) posted 20-Jun-2008 9:43am

posted 20-Jun-2008 10:12am

Should be used more often and should not take so long to carry out.

LJD

posted 20-Jun-2008 11:22am

Capital punishment should be used more often. If proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the person should be executed immediately.

The legal system has become so lenient on the criminal element, this is but one reason why we have the increase in crime. Quit coddling criminals.

Galomorro

posted 20-Jun-2008 11:42am

Should be abolished.

Enheduanna

posted 20-Jun-2008 12:13pm

I am opposed to it. I think it's barbaric and antithetical to the concept of human rights. I also think most justice systems are too flawed to allow capital punishment; how many people have been wrongfully executed?

(reply to LJD) posted 20-Jun-2008 1:22pm

> Capital punishment should be used more often.
> If proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the person
> should be executed immediately.
>
> The legal system has become so lenient on the
> criminal element, this is but one reason why we
> have the increase in crime. Quit coddling criminals.

Crime is down. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/... Is it at all posisble for you to make your case without lying?

(reply to dilfreak) posted 20-Jun-2008 1:23pm

> Should be used more often and should not take
> so long to carry out.

All speeding it up does is reduces the chances of innocent people getting exonerated. Though seing as you're a self-descirbed conservative, you probably don't care. You people are all about death; wars, death penalty, no regulation to prevent dangerous products from killing our children and pets...

Iseult

(reply to bill) posted 20-Jun-2008 2:27pm

That's a great response, Bill. And no, I don't think you sound Nazi at all.

bill

(reply to Melf, they, Iseult) posted 20-Jun-2008 2:56pm

sig heil!

Melf

(reply to bill) posted 20-Jun-2008 3:19pm

(reply to Enheduanna) posted 20-Jun-2008 3:33pm

> I am opposed to it. I think it's barbaric and antithetical to the
> concept of human rights. I also think most justice systems are too
> flawed to allow capital punishment; how many people have been wrongfully
> executed?

Just what I am saying as well look at the innocent on death row , and now they are being cleared of any
wrong doing their DNA is being looked at again and yes somebody in the wrong place at the wrong time
is sitting on death row this is not right to put to death an innocent person

Melf

(reply to bill) posted 20-Jun-2008 3:41pm

I watched Triumph Des Willens last week

Enheduanna

(reply to JessicaWoman99) posted 20-Jun-2008 3:47pm

Exactly. Having something like that happen to me is my worst nightmare. It would be awful.

bill

(reply to Melf) posted 20-Jun-2008 3:49pm

Leni!

Melf

(reply to bill) posted 20-Jun-2008 3:51pm

Indeed.

bill

(reply to Melf) posted 20-Jun-2008 3:52pm

Really, an amazing woman and her films quite beautiful if you can look past the politics, especially in their time.

(reply to Enheduanna) posted 20-Jun-2008 3:52pm

> Exactly. Having something like that happen to me is my worst nightmare.
> It would be awful.

Yes i am seeing people being cleared all the time from any wrong doing and it is sad the big rush to Judgment
without knowing the whole truth about that person?

Just think about it Enheduanna you are sitting there on death row by accident the wrong place at the wrong time
and you know in your mind that "hey" why am i here I have not done anything wrong!

Melf

(reply to bill) posted 20-Jun-2008 3:55pm

Is there anything else of hers you'd recommend? I found it very hard to look at Triumph objectively. I was thinking about watching her Olympics films but I fear I might find them boring.

Zang

posted 20-Jun-2008 4:03pm

Capital punishment is barbaric and is currently only used in rather backward uncivilised nations. There has been a gradual movement for the past couple of centuries to eliminate it. This has been reasonably successful.

bill

(reply to Melf) posted 20-Jun-2008 4:06pm

I wouldn't know them by name... they are boring in a sense... but arful... artful is often boring... context matters a lot... compared to other films in the time, they were breaking ground. But, at this point, it's hard to see it. Also, just that a woman did them, again in that time, was amazing. So, I guess historically interesting...

Melf

(reply to bill) posted 20-Jun-2008 4:08pm

(reply to JessicaWoman99) posted 20-Jun-2008 5:18pm

The scenario that comes to my mind is if someone really killed another person in self defense or on accident and there was a doubt among other people that it was really self defense or accidental. That seems scary to me.

posted 20-Jun-2008 5:28pm

there should be no capital punishment!!

(reply to LJD) posted 20-Jun-2008 5:33pm

> The legal system has become so lenient on the criminal element, this
> is but one reason why we have the increase in crime. Quit coddling
> criminals.

pretty much there has been an overall decrease in crime through out the country over the last 10 yrs or so.
and what is "beyond reasonable doubt"? there is almost no case in which i would want to take someone's life for the evidence given, even with a confession you can't be sure! there have been cases where people have been in prison for 10 yrs or more for a coerced confession!

Crayons

(reply to bill) posted 20-Jun-2008 8:33pm

Well said. Well said.

(reply to Frostbrand) posted 20-Jun-2008 11:15pm

Once again, frostbrand strikes with his stereotyping comments. What a surprise....

It offends me that you think I and other conservatives don't care.

Actually speeding up the process would save a lot of money and would increase the deterrent effect. I do believe that a lot of the counter arguments for capital punishment are based on the exorbitant costs of executing someone. Therefore speeding it up would reduce costs and make everyone happier. Yes inmates have been exonerated off of death row, however over the last 100 years not one executed criminal has been proven innocent after the fact. I do recognize that in order to speed up the process there would need to be additional measures placed to ensure the innocent are not executed. Thus... I do care.

(reply to dilfreak) posted 21-Jun-2008 12:53am

> Once again, frostbrand strikes with his stereotyping
> comments. What a surprise....
>
> It offends me that you think I and other conservatives
> don't care.
>

In my defnese, it's based on nearly 20 years of observation & study.

> Actually speeding up the process would save a
> lot of money and would increase the deterrent
> effect.

Um, no. Death penalty cases actually cost us MORE money. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pd...

> I do believe that a lot of the counter
> arguments for capital punishment are based on
> the exorbitant costs of executing someone. Therefore
> speeding it up would reduce costs and make everyone
> happier. Yes inmates have been exonerated off
> of death row, however over the last 100 years
> not one executed criminal has been proven innocent
> after the fact.

Nope. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/national/12DEAT....

> I do recognize that in order
> to speed up the process there would need to be
> additional measures placed to ensure the innocent
> are not executed. Thus... I do care.

Except your central thesis is wrong.

docgbrown

posted 21-Jun-2008 2:29am

Mixed

(reply to LindaH) posted 21-Jun-2008 3:13am

> The scenario that comes to my mind is if someone really killed another
> person in self defense or on accident and there was a doubt among
> other people that it was really self defense or accidental. That seems
> scary to me.

Oh yes this is a scary one indeed self defense or by accident and here they are thinking it was deliberate
which case it was not very frightening Linda

(reply to Frostbrand) posted 21-Jun-2008 10:06am

You do realize that your rebuttal didn't actually help you in any way? I know death penalty cases cost us more money, hence why I believe we should speed up the process as it will reduce costs. The article in the NYtimes that you cited also does nothing for you. No where in that article does it state any concrete proof that the innocent have been executed. It's all conjecture from a judge. It's the judge's opinion.

(reply to dilfreak) posted 21-Jun-2008 2:33pm

> You do realize that your rebuttal didn't actually
> help you in any way? I know death penalty cases
> cost us more money, hence why I believe we should
> speed up the process as it will reduce costs.

And increase the odds of innocent people getting killed! Joepesh Green Brown was on Detah Row for 13 years before he was cleared. Under your system, he'd be dead instead of free. But agian, I submit that you don't care because of your ideological support for a system that only 1 of the many studies done in the past 10 to 20 years showed had even a small deterrent effect. That would be like considering a mosquito net to be "perfectly effecitve" so long as it blocks one mosquito.

Under a speeded up system, the following people would also be dead;

Wilbert Lee, on Death Row for 12 years. Pardoned
Freddie Pitts. 12 years as well. Pardoned
Jerry Banks, 5 years. Charges Dismissed
Johnny Ross, 6. Charges Dismissed
Ernest (Shuhaa) Graham, 5 years. Acquitted
Lawyer Johnson. 11 years. Charges Dismissed
Clifford Henry Bowen, in for 5. Charges Dismissed

129 people, including the ones I mentioned, would be dead under your and LJD's way.

Average number of years between being sentenced to death and exoneration: 9.5 years. But I guess it's better to just kill them right, then apologize later? That's what you and LJD are asking for, even if you don't realize it.

> The article in the NYtimes that you cited also
> does nothing for you. No where in that article
> does it state any concrete proof that the innocent
> have been executed. It's all conjecture from
> a judge. It's the judge's opinion.

You don't exactly have concrete proof either. Just an ironic hope that the same government you don't want making sure your kid's toys are safe or colecting your taxes or ensuring gays have civil rights is trustworthy enough not to execute an innocent man. It's laughable. Given how flawed the capital punishment system has been proven to be, it is at best naieve and at worst reatrded for you to make the statement that no innocent person has bene executed. You'd find more evidence in support of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and that Belgium was behind 9/11!

In Oklahoma just a few years ago, a man was executed even after the M.E. whose testimony put him away had been caught falsifying evidence. Not that it matter sright? he was executed, so he must've been guilty.

Every Right Wing policy ultimately leads to more human misery sufering pain and death. It's been true since the Trail of Tears, it's truetoday with the Iraq Occupation, crumbling infrastructure, and kid's toys with the date rape drug on them.

Then of course there's the racism AND classism involved. Those who are executed are most notable for their lack of resources or poor legal representation. While African Americans only make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population, they made up 43% of the inmates on death row in 1999, and a little more than a third of those actually executed that year. And of the whites on death row, how many of them were in the top tax bracket? How many millioniares have we got walking the green mile? I know LJD doesn't mind, she's been open about her white supremacy viewpoint. How 'bout you?

romkey

posted 21-Jun-2008 8:41pm

I'm generally but not 100% against it.

I think it's been easily applied in too many situations. I think that in general, ape should not kill ape...

but then there seem to be a very few people who just need to die.

(reply to romkey) posted 21-Jun-2008 8:52pm

The dude that killed most of the Groene family comes to mind

LJD

(reply to Frostbrand) posted 22-Jun-2008 12:36pm

Crime is UP, UP. Lots of gang activity....I'm fed up, and so are most people here. The ploy is to allow crime to get out of hand, and much of the crime around here is gang related, also involves guns by the criminal. This is but a way for the average, unknowing citizen...to accept gun control. The centralized government wants CONTROL, and that means gun control.

(reply to LJD) posted 22-Jun-2008 1:49pm

> Crime is UP, UP.

OK, a lie told in all caps is still a lie. There's been a sl;ight uptick, but the trend is downward.

> Lots of gang activity....I'm
> fed up, and so are most people here.

So fed up you have to lie about it.

> The ploy
> is to allow crime to get out of hand, and much
> of the crime around here is gang related, also
> involves guns by the criminal. This is but a
> way for the average, unknowing citizen...to accept
> gun control. The centralized government wants
> CONTROL, and that means gun control.

And a paranoid liar to boot.

I suppose next you'll tell us that plaque is an invention of the liberal media and the dental industry to scare us into buying useless appliances and pastes?

Melf

(reply to Frostbrand) posted 22-Jun-2008 2:31pm

I don't mean to sound smarmy here (it's hard to ask a genuine question without some kind of implication) - what proof shows crime rates are going down?

(reply to Melf) posted 22-Jun-2008 11:54pm

> I don't mean to sound smarmy here (it's hard to
> ask a genuine question without some kind of implication)
> - what proof shows crime rates are going down?

The FBI keeps track, and violent crime has been on a general nationwide downward trend since the mid-90s. Rudy Guiliani tried to take credit for it while he was running for President. Sadly, media coverage of violent acts have disporportionately gone up, which is how LJD can believe something so fervently that is not at all true.Well, that and her religious upbringing.

(reply to Frostbrand) posted 23-Jun-2008 11:14am

I don't even know if I should bother responding to you, everything you say or do is judgmental and nonobjective. I recently wrote a research paper about capital punishment. I was required to do an intensive study both for and against the practice. I know both sides of the argument. Every fact, statistic, and story I found contradicts what you are saying.

1) There is a real deterrent effect. It's not a matter of one study over the last 10-20 years that shows this fact (as you put it). It's a matter of many studies done by reputable professors at universities. Professors at both Emory University and also at the University of Colorado have done several studies in the last 5 years alone. The number of averted murders was found to be 5 per every one execution. If you look back to the 70's when the supreme court placed a moratorium over capital punishment, you would learn that during this time the number of murders erupted, more then doubling itself. The rate per capita of homicide during this time rose from 5.1 to 10.0 murders per 100,000 people. Sure enough, as soon as the supreme court realized their fault, they re-instituted the practice and immediately murders declined.
2) There is concrete proof that no innocent man has been executed because to this day not one single individual has been proven to be innocent after the execution. It has been speculated that the innocent have been executed, but no proof has surfaced. That fact alone is concrete proof in my favor. Even in your example from oklahoma, you never stated that the man who was executed was found innocent. You simply stated that the witness falsified information.
3) The biggest misconception about capital punishment is the idea of discrimination. According to the department of justice, over half of all inmates on death row are white. There is no bias in the system. Yes many inmates are black, but even more are white. Maybe the fact that there isn't very many millionaires walking the green mile is because very few millionaires actually commit heinous crimes that justify execution... duh.

My concern in regards to capital punishment is to save lives. I absolutely hate how you stereotype me as an unsympathetic barbarian. You don't know me. You have no right to make those kinds of allegations. I do not want an innocent man to be executed. If you would actually read my words you would understand that. I want time on death row minimized without compromising the innocent. I feel that it is possible. The fact of the matter is that capital punishment does save the innocent; innocent victims of brutal murders and heinous crimes.

(reply to dilfreak) posted 23-Jun-2008 1:06pm

> I don't even know if I should bother responding
> to you, everything you say or do is judgmental
> and nonobjective.

Damn right it's judgemental! How can you not be judgemental of someone who advocates for a capital punishment policy that would make more likely that an innocent person would be murdered at the hands of the state. if our positions were reversed and you weren't as angry as I am about that, there'd be cause to question your conscience.

> I recently wrote a research
> paper about capital punishment. I was required
> to do an intensive study both for and against
> the practice. I know both sides of the argument.
> Every fact, statistic, and story I found contradicts
> what you are saying.
>

Except I've given names and numbers, you've only offered rhetoric and death.

> 1) There is a real deterrent effect. It's not
> a matter of one study over the last 10-20 years
> that shows this fact (as you put it). It's a
> matter of many studies done by reputable professors
> at universities. Professors at both Emory University
> and also at the University of Colorado have done
> several studies in the last 5 years alone. The
> number of averted murders was found to be 5 per
> every one execution. If you look back to the
> 70's when the supreme court placed a moratorium
> over capital punishment, you would learn that
> during this time the number of murders erupted,
> more then doubling itself.

The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990. Including Kansas and New York, which adopted the death penalty in 1994 and 1995 respectively. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=1... Numerous studies are cited here.

> The rate per capita
> of homicide during this time rose from 5.1 to
> 10.0 murders per 100,000 people. Sure enough,
> as soon as the supreme court realized their fault,
> they re-instituted the practice and immediately
> murders declined.

Except it didn't. You left out that little bit of information.

> 2) There is concrete proof that no innocent man
> has been executed because to this day not one
> single individual has been proven to be innocent
> after the execution.

Really? Then how come I've never seen this concrete proof? Oh wait, you're a Republican! You consdiered a forged memo from Niger "proof" that Saddam Hussein had restarted his nuclear program. Fact: The following people were exceuted despite reasnonable doubts about their guilt. Are you really so naive to think that NONE of them might've been inncoent? http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2...

> It has been speculated that
> the innocent have been executed, but no proof
> has surfaced. That fact alone is concrete proof
> in my favor.

Concrete proof? On what planet?

> Even in your example from oklahoma,
> you never stated that the man who was executed
> was found innocent. You simply stated that the
> witness falsified information.

Hey jackass, I wrote Medical Examiner, not witness. He tampered with evidence, in MULTIPLE CASES! You don't have concrete proof that no innocent person has ever been executed, you just need to believe it even in the face of evidence that it likely has consdiering we've had capitla punishment in this country since before we even had the Revolution (Salem anyone?).

> 3) The biggest misconception about capital punishment
> is the idea of discrimination. According to the
> department of justice, over half of all inmates
> on death row are white.

45.3% is over half? Now I know you're a Right Winger. You guys tend to be bad (read: lie about) math, but really, even that shouldn't have escaped you. Combined Minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, Other) makes up MORE than half. You lied, plain and simple. For your argument to be true, you have to count ONLY Blacks or ONLY Hispanics, or ONLY "Other:". BLACK 41.7% + HISPANIC 10.7% + OTHER 2.3% = MORE THAN HALF!

> There is no bias in the
> system. Yes many inmates are black, but even
> more are white. Maybe the fact that there isn't
> very many millionaires walking the green mile
> is because very few millionaires actually commit
> heinous crimes that justify execution... duh.
>

You open and close with a lie. Not smart, but hardly unexpected. Check out this Congressional study on disparity in death penalty cases. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=4... Oh, and if there is no bias in the system, why are you more likely to get the death penalty if the victim is white? PERSONS EXECUTED FOR INTERRACIAL MURDERS IN THE U.S. SINCE 1976 White Defendant / Black Victim (15) Black Defendant / White Victim (224) Oh wait, you're a Right Winger. White people matter more. As for millionaires committing heinous crimes, you are simply full of it. Books have been written about rich kids killing or raping people and getting away with it. Dominick Dunne alone has written volumes on the subject.

>
> My concern in regards to capital punishment is
> to save lives.

The most ironic you've ever said.

> I absolutely hate how you stereotype
> me as an unsympathetic barbarian.

If the shoe fits... You wnat to spped up the process. By how much? Short time than it took to free the 129 people I mentioned? Shorter than the time it would take to get the innocent who may still be on the row off? If one of them is executed, will you change your mind then? Or will you just do as you've done already and just say "there's no concrete proof" and that'll be enough to help you sleep at night?

> You don't know
> me.

Not directly, but I've been arguing with people LIKE you for 20 years, and the only things differnet are age, geography, pets, and taste in music/movies/books.

> You have no right to make those kinds of
> allegations. I do not want an innocent man to
> be executed.

Yet it becomes more likely that one will if we speed up the process, erego, you D. Res ipsa loquitor.

> If you would actually read my words
> you would understand that. I want time on death
> row minimized without compromising the innocent.

How would that work exactly? It can't. It's another Right Wing fantasy, like the Milton Friedman myth, or the idea that democracy can be given at gun point at that allowing gays to marry will ruin heterosexual mariage (never mind that the first state to have legalized it has the LOWEST divorce rate in the country, and still has a sky over it contrary to popular Right Wing opinion).

> I feel that it is possible.

Not good enough. The current mess we're in is because someone trusted their feling over reality. Feeling is good enough for art, not for policy and certianly not when there is death invovled.

> The fact of the
> matter is that capital punishment does save the
> innocent; innocent victims of brutal murders and
> heinous crimes.

Strong evidence points in the opposite direction. Which means that of course you will just ignore it. 68% of the death penalty convictions between 1973 - 1995 were reversed. To me that says, the system s falwed. to you, not enough death.

(reply to dilfreak) posted 23-Jun-2008 1:44pm

> I feel that it is possible. The fact of the
> matter is that capital punishment does save the
> innocent; innocent victims of brutal murders and
> heinous crimes.

Doesn't locking up murderers for life (no chance of parole) serve the same purpose?

(reply to LindaH) posted 23-Jun-2008 10:48pm

Not really. Criminals often commit murders while in prison, other inmates as well as guards can be victims. There's an example from texas where a serial killer was sentenced to life, but was released after only serving 30 years. Immediately after his release additional victims started to pile up under his wrath. An additional nine people were murdered including a pregnant mother of 3 kids. Eventually he was caught, this time sentenced to death with a quick follow through. If he was put to death in the beginning nine people would have been saved.

(reply to dilfreak) posted 23-Jun-2008 10:52pm

If he would not have been released, nine people would have been saved.

(reply to LindaH) posted 23-Jun-2008 11:42pm

In the beginning he was serving a life sentence, but laws changed, his attorney battled for his release and eventually succeeded. A life sentence does not mean what it should. Even if someone is sentence to life without parole, the sentencing rarely stands.

(reply to dilfreak) posted 23-Jun-2008 11:44pm

Then that's what should change.

LJD

(reply to jettles) posted 24-Jun-2008 3:10am

Unfortunately, in a not perfect world, there will be mistakes. These mistakes should not happen, but they do. I do believe we keep murderers on death row for years and years, people who have done unspeakable crimes, these people should not be supported by the taxpayers. Prison should be a punishment, and for those that can be rehabilitated. Some can never be "fixed". They need to be put to death.

posted 24-Jun-2008 12:41pm

Wouldn't that be a solution? Everyone who is a danger to society, put to death. Everyone who is not a danger to society, be let out. Woot! No more prisons!

(reply to LJD) posted 24-Jun-2008 2:52pm

so it's ok in your mind to have "some mistakes"?? and just to educate you, none of our prisons are spending any time on rehabilitation, NONE of them. so by your standards we should kill them all because we aren't rehabilitating anyone. the prison system is big business and a holding system with it's own caste system........... it's not what you are deluding yourself it to be.
our system is based on not allowing an innocent to be put to death, not on the "kill the all" premise.

(reply to dilfreak) posted 24-Jun-2008 2:55pm

>
>
> Actually speeding up the process would save a lot of money and would
> increase the deterrent effect.

it has been proven over and over that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent to crime because the people committing the crimes don't think they are going to be caught!

(reply to jettles, LJD) posted 24-Jun-2008 4:29pm

I don't even think 'rehabilitation' should enter the equation. Dangerous, violent people should be in jail or a mental hospital, and should never be allowed to walk amongst the rest of us, as long as they are considered living, breathing safety hazards. As for people who are not dangerous to the rest of us: Why are they even in prison?

(reply to LindaH) posted 24-Jun-2008 4:38pm

> I don't even think 'rehabilitation' should enter
> the equation. Dangerous, violent people should
> be in jail or a mental hospital, and should never
> be allowed to walk amongst the rest of us, as
> long as they are considered living, breathing
> safety hazards. As for people who are not dangerous
> to the rest of us: Why are they even in prison?

Because they're non-Christian brown people.

LJD

(reply to jettles) posted 24-Jun-2008 6:49pm

You're absolutely right. The prison and legal system is big business. And because of that reason, it wants to keep people alive and well in the system. I feel on some crimes, when proven guilty, I say put the people to death.

LJD

(reply to LindaH) posted 24-Jun-2008 6:59pm

If the law had not become so lenient, we probably would not have the crime we have today. The law used to be tougher, which was a deterrent , more executions would be a deterrent.

Years ago, I saw a man that was put in prison for 25 years for stealing a pack of cigarettes. But, this is but an example. I met a man years ago, that had some weed, was given 5 to 7 years in prison. We need to put the brakes on drug trafficking, sex trafficking, obviously murder, gang activity...the list goes on

(reply to LJD) posted 24-Jun-2008 7:08pm

We need to be tougher on the worst crimes. Murder, rape, armed robbery, other violent offenses. We need to be more lenient on non-violent offenses where no one is hurt or stolen from, or victimized. Free up room for dangerous people. I wouldn't mind a drug user being on my street, if it meant a violent thug was behind bars instead.

LJD

(reply to LindaH) posted 24-Jun-2008 7:42pm

I've never been into drugs, can't understand the hold it has on people, or let's say why people start drugs. . I feel drug dealers need to be put in jail, on an island somewhere, the key to be thrown away.

Murder, serial murder, violent offenses, crime against children and the elderly, these people need to be put to death

(reply to LJD) posted 24-Jun-2008 8:06pm

I think some drug dealers are providing a valuable service that doctors can't. Kudos to those particular dealers. I think education is the answer to drug problems, not prohibition/locking up drug dealers. I think we need to focus on the demand side, not the supply. Drug abusers need education, therapy, rehabilitation, etc. Not jail/punishment. Dealers aren't the problem, desperation is.

(reply to jettles) posted 24-Jun-2008 10:48pm

that's incorrect. I don't know where you get your sources, but it has been proven over and over that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.

LJD

(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Jun-2008 1:17am

If the drug dealers weren't around, the drug users wouldn't have drugs. I say BIG punishment for drug dealers...big drug dealers...the death penalty. People should just not take drugs....period.

(reply to LJD) posted 25-Jun-2008 1:23am

The drugs would always be around. Drug users aren't being forced to use drugs. "People should just not take drugs" is a bit broad. What drugs are you talking about? All of the illegal ones? And what "big" drug dealers are you thinking deserve the death penalty? Moving over a specific amount? Being in the early part of the supply line?

(reply to dilfreak) posted 25-Jun-2008 3:40am

> that's incorrect. I don't know where you get
> your sources, but it has been proven over and
> over that the death penalty is a deterrent to
> crime.

Except for when it hasn't, like when I showed you how the states with no death penalty had lower crime rates. You never responded to that post by the way. I guess you knew you were lying about the "more than half of death row inamtes are white" stat.

(reply to Frostbrand) posted 25-Jun-2008 9:58am

I didn't respond to your post because it is futile arguing with you. You have no objectivity. Your attitude is as though you are always right and no one else can be right (even if they are right). What's the point in responding to your posts?

(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Jun-2008 12:24pm

because there are crimes in which someone is not "physically dangerous" to the rest of the population or they may never be dangerous again but the crimes need to be punished. is that even really a question to you?

(reply to jettles) posted 25-Jun-2008 12:33pm

Punishment for those types of crimes should not be incarceration. Fines and community service are more appropriate for low risk types.

(reply to dilfreak) posted 25-Jun-2008 12:51pm

incorrect in your mind because that is what you choose to believe. below i have list a website with counters to the recent studies and other interesting reads about deterrence. it just doesn't pan out, it doesn't happen, even though you would like to believe it. speeding up the process does not help at all and will more likely cause the execution of an innocent. death penalty seems in my mind to be used by more violent societies to control the violence that they portray to their people every day. in the US, which is what i know, we will continue to have a violent society as long as the leaders and government is violent.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2...
http://www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=25
http://www.ncadp.org/news.cfm?articleID=112

(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Jun-2008 12:55pm

i guess you and i have a difference in what a low risk type is............ or i am not understanding what you mean

(reply to jettles) posted 25-Jun-2008 1:04pm

I'm probably using "low risk" wrong. I think punishment should be rectification based. Offenders "undo" what they did wrong, and pay fines for using resources, by being a burden. If a person is deemed unsafe, they go to jail to keep society safe from them. If they are not unsafe, they rectify what they did by compensating victims, paying back the public and fixing the damage.