Death Penalty - for or against?

Tools    


Capital Punishment
20.00%
5 votes
Retain it!
44.00%
11 votes
Abolish it!
36.00%
9 votes
Use it sparingly..../ Other thoughts
25 votes. You may not vote on this poll




Okay, so i heard about the news of the execution by lethal injection of Troy Davis in Georgia. Do you support capital punishment? Or do you feel it should be abolished? Comment!

Note:
Sixty-four percent of Americans support the death penalty to punish egregious murder, according to a 2010 Gallup survey.



Abolished, for a few reasons:

1) Unless you have, say, video footage of the accused committing the murder, you can never be absolutely, 100% sure you're not sending an innocent person to die.

2) We're more advanced than that as a society. Every time we execute somebody, we're lowering ourselves to the level of the criminal. What happened to taking the high road?

3) It's not a real punishment. In my mind, a person who commits such an unspeakable act should be made to suffer in jail. Not given an easy way out.

4) As has been demonstrated so clearly in the last few weeks, the system allows for unforgivable mistakes to be made, resulting in cases like Troy Davis'.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
http://www.movieforums.com/community...d.php?p=683568
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.



Against. But not because I think it's outside of our rights as a citizenry, or that it's an unreasonable punishment for certain crimes, or that it's barbaric or outmoded. I'm against it simply because I don't have enough confidence in the justice system to make these determinations, and we're wealthy enough as a society that we can afford to imprison people for life (which was not always the case).

I'm somewhat open to retaining it if DNA evidence is involved, and I don't want to be glib towards the families of the victims, because I can't imagine it feels great to know their taxes are paying for the people who have killed their loved ones to go on living. But even hypothetically, the burden of proof for execution would have to be augmented for me to be comfortable with its use, I think.



Absolutely against it. You're no better than the murderer if you take part in something like that.
__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock



I tend to be for it, though I'm not a hardcore supporter. I guess I feel it's a necessary evil, sadly, unfortunately.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



Absolutely against it. You're no better than the murderer if you take part in something like that.
You can't equate an innocent life with the life of a murderer. Just can't be done. By the same logic, if you put someone in jail for kidnapping, you're no better than the kidnapper...? There has to be an allowance for (and acknowledgment of) the fact that criminals forfeit rights when they violate others' rights. Perhaps death is a bridge too far, but there's simply no way to draw an equivalence here, whatever one thinks about the ultimate punishment.

In other words, I may be against the death penalty, but I'm just as against a lot of the arguments against it.



Against it generally, for it only in a few specific cases, such as The Aryan Brotherhood prison gang/crime syndicate. Responsible for 21% of murders in Federal Prisons (as well as controlling criminal organizations outside of prison) and the bosses all considered themselves basically untouchable because they were already serving life sentences without parole.



I'm a proponent in extreme cases, like child molesters, serial killers, serial rapists, robbery leading to homicide. Those kind of people, they don't deserve to live for another second. I'd be ok with it if they were sentenced to lifelong hard, manual labor, but that's not the case anymore.

If you see a jail cell in Belgium, you would be like:WTF? THIS IS MORE LUXURIOUS THAN MY DORM! Those cvnts even have a tv. If they can afford it, they're allowed to surf on the internet. All paid for with MY tax money.

No, just get rid of them.



1) Unless you have, say, video footage of the accused committing the murder, you can never be absolutely, 100% sure you're not sending an innocent person to die.
Dude, if you have DNA evidence, more than one eyewitness and a murder weapon with prints on it, it's pretty safe to say you have the right guy.

3) It's not a real punishment. In my mind, a person who commits such an unspeakable act should be made to suffer in jail. Not given an easy way out.
So, what if jail doesn't equate to suffering for them? What if they like it there? Is that punishment?



I voted " Use sparingly" as i felt that the death penalty is still required as a form of justice for the victim's relatives and friends.

Also, speaking about deterrence, people fear nothing more than death. Therefore nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life sentence must be less of a deterrent than a death sentence.



Who's going to believe a talking head?
As a conservative i think that the death penalty should not be abolished. No political system nor system of justice is 100% correct all the time or free from mistakes. Similarly, the death penalty, being a system of justice, rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases.

And there are others who claim that the death penalty is racially biased. Well, what about the recent execution of the murderer who killed a black man in Texas? Why wasnt there an uproar, unlike the Troy Davis case?



Well, what about the recent execution of the murderer who killed a black man in Texas? Why wasnt there an uproar, unlike the Troy Davis case?
Because he was probably guilty, unlike Troy Davis.



3) It's not a real punishment. In my mind, a person who commits such an unspeakable act should be made to suffer in jail. Not given an easy way out.
You do realize when someone is sentenced to death, they don't just go immediately to the execution chamber, right?

Troy Davis was imprisoned for 20 years before he was executed. During that time there were appeals hearings, hearings with the clemency boards, and all the emotional ups and downs of dealing with that, combined with the stress of prison. I'd hardly call it an easy way out.

Many death row inmates are never even executed. Some have their sentences commuted to life terms, others die of other causes while awaiting execution. (According to antideathpenalty.org) In my state of California, only 1% of those sentenced to die are actually executed. Though that number is quite different in other states such as Texas, where 40% of death row inmates are executed.

As to my thoughts on the death penalty, I'm on the fence. I am absolutely for the concept of eliminating such people. However, people who commit such crimes are not on an even playing field. If you're wealthy, you're less likely to die. If you're white, you're less likely to die. If you're female, you're less likely to die. Justice isn't really blind.



Against, but only because of the current appeal system. The death penalty isn't a deterrent nor, IMO, a punishment, therefore I'm only for it in economic terms. Currently that's a long and lengthy process, thereby negating my desire for it.



If you want to achieve greatness, stop asking for permission
Against it.

1) It sends a terrible message. The whole "an-for-an-eye" approach doesn't help anyone. It's a conventional, out-dated mindset; why should it take killing those who have killed in order to demonstrate that killing is wrong? Doesn't make sense to me.

2) Capital punishment costs taxpayers 2 to 5 times more money than keeping a person in prison for life.

3) Capital punishment does not deter crime.

4) It's a cruel death lottery. Approximately 22,000 homicides are committed each year in the U.S., and of those only 150 are sentenced to death. The crime itself doesn't seem to matter; the death penalty ruling more or less depends on the jurisdiction and the quality of legal counsel. The punishment is not guaranteed to fit the crime.

5) Accidental execution. 130 death row inmates have been found innocent since 1973. In Texas, for example, the average number of executions per exoneration since 1976 is 45. The chances of being exonerated are extremely slim, and most of the time exoneration is the result of prior testimony being deemed illigitimate or someone coming forward to confess to the crime. In the case of Troy Davis, even though there was no physical or DNA evidence to convict, he could not even be exonerated.

It's a failing system that makes no sense. In order to advance as a society, we need to abolish this medieval mindset and instead practice a more sensible solution.
__________________
"If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion."
- Christopher Nolan



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Against it. Lock them up in a solitary cell with no chance of parole. Don't let em have any pets like the Birdman of Alcatraz. If they befriend a rat in their cell that is okay.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



1) It sends a terrible message. The whole "an-for-an-eye" approach doesn't help anyone. It's a conventional, out-dated mindset; why should it take killing those who have killed in order to demonstrate that killing is wrong? Doesn't make sense to me.
Tell that to the victim's family.

2) Capital punishment costs taxpayers 2 to 5 times more money than keeping a person in prison for life.
Maintaining a social security safety net also costs lots more than simply having nothing to aid people in need. What is your point?

3) Capital punishment does not deter crime.
That is not true for certain. Evidence on this matter is inconclusive. Also, that is a very absolute statement you made there that can't be argued about without context.

I'm off now. Might discuss this a bit more tomorrow if the thread isn't a mess by then.