Are you for or against the death penalty?

[John McClane]

and why?

I'm only for it because I'd want an eye for an eye if a family member was hurt, otherwise I'd be against it.

[Indydan13]

I'm against it because it is not severe enough. A man decapitates a whole family and in return spends maybe 5 years on death row and dies in 30 seconds. If it were eye for an eye, a condemned man would be killed in the way he killed.

[tall square]

I recently had a long debate about this involving Andrea Yates on the gamefaqs.com boards.

While I completely respect the support for the death penalty as a fitting retribution, I disagree with it because realistically I don't see it solving any problems. What they've done is done, and we can't change that; I tend to believe that the victims' friends/families sadness can't be cured because the reason for it (their friend/family member is dead) cannot be fixed by execution.

Plus, capital punishment isn't an effective solution to crime. It doesn't work as a deterrent (we've had forms of the death penalty for thousands of years yet murder still happens), and doesn't really address the key problem here: some social factor or mental illness drove someone to murder. Figuring out how to change our society or treat people properly is infinitely more valuable than executing mere manifestations of the problem. Some say "execute them so they can't kill again" but prison stops them from killing also. If we choose to rehabilitate criminals in prison/mental hospitals, there is at least a greater chance that they might come to terms with what they've done, apologize, and become a better person (or their mental illness has a chance to be cured/studied).

[monkey]

When someone has committed a murder either one of two things has occurred: There is mental illness, or society has failed.....or maybe both.

By putting the offender to death we accomplish nothing other than to take the offender off of the streets...........out of society. But as Tall Square has said, putting them in prison accomplishes the same thing. Therefore, the death penalty is illogical.

But speaking for myself: 'Life in prison without the possibility of parole'......or 'Death'. I would prefer the latter. To me life in prison without the possibility of parole would be far worse than death.

In fact, 'lethal injection' is probably the nicest way possible to enter the 'great beyond'. I mean, were I old and infirm, and wished to end my life, there is no more pleasant way to end one's days than the 'lethal injection' process that is the final chapter for death row inmates.

It's too good for some of those bastards..........especially child abusers and killers.

But then again, does killing them accomplish anything???

Revenge??? But revenge is an illogical emotion. Revenge goes against the teachings off all of the world's religions.

I don't know......................difficult question.

[HovitosKing]

Yes, I'm for it. This is why:

1. A prisoner sent to death row will, on average, sit there for about 12-15 years waiting to be executed. The wait is in solitary confinement, 24-7 lockdown, as opposed to a general population environment with a few hours per day on the outside of the cell (for life terms). 24-7 solitary confinement would drive me insane within a few days, and I can only imagine what it would do to a person in 12-15 years. I think this mental torture is appropriate for those on death row.

2. I am a taxpayer, and would rather have the state's or fed's financial burden of supporting a prisoner relieved than have him sit in prison serving what some would call the more "severe" punishment of life in prison. It's cheaper to kill a prisoner, so I'm all for it.

For these two reasons, cold as they may be, I am 100% for the death penalty. To address some other posts on this thread, I want to say a couple of things. Every society since the beginning of time has had murderers. Society cannot be to blame, since this behavior is consistent across them. Mental illness, while it may be to blame sometimes, is also irrelevant because many with mental illness do not kill and many without mental illness kill. We shouldn't be making excuses or blaming others for these horrible acts, we should be protecting the innocent by eliminating the criminals. I am a graduate student in psychology, and have done a lot of formal research in the area of forensics. I do know a little about what I'm saying.

[Johan]

I kinda think its sometimes to good for the criminal, quite often those that commit such hideous crimes and have a good 20 years to think about often tell a good story and change lives by their stories before people make the same mistakes. The only good that the death penalty does is to save some tax dollars.

[Snakewhip_Sable]

If they kill the murderers, then criminal types will think twice before killing anyone else. It not only eases the burden on taxpayers, but it's a really good crime deterent. A lot of people in prison have it easy, relatively speaking. They get food and shelter for the rest of their lives and don't have to work like regular folk and they can even vote. All they have to worry about is the inconvenience of anal rape and being shanked in the gut with a sharpened spoon every once in a while. (shudder!)

I'm 100% for the death penalty if it's absolutely sure that the one being executed is, in fact, the guilty one.

Because mistakes happen, I'm not 100% for it though. Call me 85% for the death penalty.

What's this got to do with Indy? ;)

[IAdventurer01]

2. I am a taxpayer, and would rather have the state's or fed's financial burden of supporting a prisoner relieved than have him sit in prison serving what some would call the more "severe" punishment of life in prison. It's cheaper to kill a prisoner, so I'm all for it.

I could be wrong, but I've heard that many "humane" ways to kill criminals actually cost MORE than life in jail. Of course, this could also vary with the age of the criminal.

[HovitosKing]

I guess it depends on the length of time spent in prison. I found a source that estimates the cost of lethal injection execution per inmate somewhere between $5-$16K http://www.fcc.state.fl.us/fcc/reports/monitor/appdmon.html . The annual cost of supporting an inmate in prison is between $26-$30K http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/welcome/the_fear_factor.html. Obviously it would be cheaper to execute an inmate than to keep him incarcerated for more than a couple of years. Either way, life in prison is NOT the vacation that many people think it is. IF you have any doubt, just schedule a prison tour. Life there is more horrendous than most could imagine. They perform extreme manual labor much of the day (when they're not on lockdown or enjoying "free" time), for only a few cents per hour. They eat horrible food prepared by other inmates, constantly afraid it's been laced with glass or metal shards. There is never a time when the noise level is low enough to get any real sleep. The showers come once every few days and they, with the exception of Alcatraz back in the day, have never pumped out hot water. I'm not saying that they don't deserve the consequences of the life they chose, but I would ask that you at least understand that prison is not the resort that people commonly think it is.

[Snakewhip_Sable]

I found a source that estimates the cost of lethal injection execution per inmate somewhere between $5-$16K.

The cost of a syringe full of air or Windex is considerably less. :p

Oh, I'm going to Hades for that one!

[monkey]

I think what it all boils down to is this:

As a society, how far a step is it from capital punishment to......Auschwitz?

I know that may sound somewhat ridiculous, ...but is it really? Maybe banning capital punishment is an important barometer of society.

When you begin to talk of the value of human life in terms of $$ you cross over a line.

If society should not be forced to pay the bill for housing certain prisoners, and should just kill them instead, then should society have to pay to house the mentally ill? After all, they don't contribute anything, and are a drain to tax payers aren't they?

If you allow society to consider the former, then there will be those among us who will consider the latter.

And then where does society go from there?

[Colonel Vogel]

I think the death penalty is a bit harsh with regards to drug traffickers.:dead:

[westford]

I'm against it. They used to hang people in this country and there are several known cases where the person was later proved to be innocent.

should society have to pay to house the mentally ill? After all, they don't contribute anything, and are a drain to tax payers aren't they?

Society doesn't pay anything towards me, and I've never killed anyone. :p

Westford (proud to be mental!)

[Luisiana Jones]

For me it changes between the one been judged, i mean someone sells drugs, well to jail, but if you are a fu****g terrorist like ETA u should die, not like some in my country who are to be realeased soon because they have been 20 years in Jail for killing almost 50 people each :mad:

[soapboxtop]

I don't believe the death penalty is a crime deterrent. There used to be public executions in this country (and all others) and I doubt crime rates in, let's say, the US last century were lower than today comparatively with the total population.

The death penalty doesn't resolve anything in my opinion, the only reason why it's still going is because families demand revenge, a natural yet basic animal instinct, I think...we eventually have to rise over it and find another solution showing more humanity.

[TommyJohnson]

Obviously I'm for.

I don't know why so many Americans are against.

If you give death, you must receive death. Possibly the same death.


But only if you're sure that that person is REALLY the criminal. Without all the necessary proves, you risk to kill an innocent. That's the main reason because so many people are against death row.

If you're really sure that this man, for example, did killed another man with a gun shot in the head, than the most right thing in the world would be to shot him in th head, at the same way he did.

Oh yeah, and there will be more free sapce in prisons, which means less criminal to feed with our goddamn money.

[Flasha_tasha]

If we choose to rehabilitate criminals in prison/mental hospitals, there is at least a greater chance that they might come to terms with what they've done, apologize, and become a better person (or their mental illness has a chance to be cured/studied).

I'm not sure if I agree totally with that statement. I know of a case in Australia where this guy was put into prison for murder. He was given therapy whilst serving his time and eventually they release him back into society because they believed he was cured. However within 20 minutes of leaving he went on a murder spree and ended up killing at least 17 woman in that day.

[Jay R. Zay]

"I'm not sure if I agree totally with that statement. I know of a case in Australia where this guy was put into prison for murder. He was given therapy whilst serving his time and eventually they release him back into society because they believed he was cured. However within 20 minutes of leaving he went on a murder spree and ended up killing at least 17 woman in that day."

which actually proves the point. you remember one example. i know. everytime when i hear something in favor of the death penalty, people have one example. usually somebody who did a very violent crime or many murders without showing regret. how many people are killed by death penalty every year? how many of them turned out to be innocent? how many did just a single crime, where every sensible person knows they'll never again get in such a situation? how many would realize their mistake? and after all these DEAD people, after all these MURDERED people, they have one example? ONE example? what can i do, kill a hundred people and say "look, this one deserved it!"?

let's see it rationally. death penalty in america killed thousands of men and women. it was no "accident", they were supposed to die. they killed the wrong people and sometimes it was obvious before but nevertheless they did. so what can we call somebody who killed thousands of people? wouldn't we call him a murderer? so if now "death penalty" killed thousands of people - why don't we sentence death penalty?

exactly, tasha, everybody says "it's better to kill these people because if we release them, they'd go on killing". and that's what death penalty does. it goes on killing. innocent people. why can somebody be sentenced to death for killing one person in self defence while a whole system killing partly innocent people can go on? the americans are afraid that they might get killed by a murderer tomorrow. that's why they fight murderers. but it's as likely that they are brought to jail tomorrow, are sentenced to death and killed by this system. i don't know if this is the better way to die. but for some reasons, most people seem to like this idea better.

in my opinion, the times of "revenge" should be over now. prison sentences can also keep people save. okay, some people in germany might kill again after 13 years of prison. how many per year would die of such a situation? one? two? and how many innocent people do we have killed in germany per year? let's say at most two, during a police raid or something. that's what i'd call an accident, it's a terrible thing but that's life. nobody could change this. but nobody is killed with the will of the people.

i don't suppose you have an idea of how many innocent people are killed every year in the US. i don't have topical data about this but the last report i read (some years old) named 14 people, just in iowa, who were killed during the previous year and turned out to be innocent. i don't think this australian guy you named could keep up with all the 50 states. this report, by the way, was in favor of the death penalty, it also had this "one example" of a very cruel murder. who cares about 14 dead people when at least this guy got toasted, right?

[Flasha_tasha]

I only said I didn't totally agree with ur statement and gave a good case why

[Indydan13]

I'm against for one reason...

It's not bad enough.

A man can torture 5 kids for a month, decapitate them, and bury them in the basement only to wait in safety for 7 years and die in 5 seconds.

Not an actual example, but close enough...

[soapboxtop]

There are cases of death penalty I believe are too harsh. Especially if the murderer is under 18....sometimes a kid will go crazy if he's abused by his parents. Or a woman will kill her abusive, repeatitively violent husband and be sentenced to death.

[Jay R. Zay]

let's look at this position: "When someone has committed a murder either one of two things has occurred: There is mental illness, or society has failed.....or maybe both."

it is correct. do you think anybody *wants* to be a murderer? nobody would. if you could choose, without any influence, nobody would want to be a murderer.

the fact is that you are the result of your surroundings, of your family, of your DNA, of your education,... . you don't kill anybody "for fun". IF you do, that's mental illness and not your fault either. usually murderers weren't educated to accept life the way we do -> society has failed. we are dogs. if your dog kills somebody, it's mostly your fault, not its. we force people to live in our society. okay. we force them to live in a world with our rules. okay. but this gives US a responsibility for what they are doing. single people are the dogs and society is the dog owner. we make the people that live in our world. if they behave wrong, it's our fault. you want revenge? "It's not bad enough"? let's just kill the dogs and let the dog owners have another one. everytime a murder occurs, people put all the blame on the murderer. it's not their fault, it's not the systems fault. he was educated correctly, he knew what he was doing, he lived a good life and suddenly, just for fun, he murdered somebody. does this sound probable? not to me. society has failed and we should start to grab the problem by the roots. but we are too afraid of it. it makes society a closer network when there is "we", the good ones who aren't responsible, against "them", the bad ones, that kill. we stand united against them. osama bin laden kills americans? bad guy. the americans abused his people for their war? come on, that's no reason to kill americans. things are easy for most people. in this case, the americans didn't make any mistakes, they always saved the world, etc, and now some madman kills americans. for no reason.

i don't mean to say 9/11 way "okay" or something. it was a terrible attack. but it's not that easy either. but we don't learn from it.

there recently was a case of somebody who committed a murder and was found to be retarded. so he wouldn't be sentenced to death. after several years in prison, they noticed his IQ rose over the point where people must not be sentenced to death: prison life made him smarter. and now they want to (if they haven't already) kill him.

huh`? this law about metally challenged people was made because they are not responsible for their murders. so this guy committed a murder when he wasn't (obviously) responsible and by getting more intelligent in prison, he now IS responsible for what he did when he wasn't? where is the logic? it's like asking a 2 year old boy "can you read and write"? he says "no". and when he learns reading long after this, he becomes a liar?

that's the american law. and that's the american way, that many people accept it. they accept everything. they don't ask "can anyone please tell me why getting cleverer is a reason for killing somebody". they look at the law, it says for example "don't kill people with an IQ below 60" and when it's 61, they kill him. it's this easy. if your system of death penalty, cruel as it is, at least was *sensible*, i'd say okay, do it. but it's not even this. when you look at the cases, you get the impression that people are killed almost arbitrarily. some people who are completely innocent, some people who killed in self defence, some people who weren't responsible for their actions, ... .

and to avoid these problems, just abolish death penalty. we don't have such a problem with murderers in germany. in america, there often is a constant feeling of fear. in germany, there isn't. yes, we do have muderers, but prison sentences do just as well. usually we don't look at the mistakes of society either but at least, we don't kill anybody for our mistakes. we lock them away or send them to therapy. that's probably all you can do when you don't want to question society itself. yes, we have very questionable sentences either but our convicted people have the opportunity to fight for their rights. we don't hurry to kill them before they get unpleasent for our social system.

[Colonel Vogel]

That is one huge post Jay R. Zay, now I feel sorry for the murderers. :(
I guess society and God have let them down.

"If we could extract all the evil from each of us, think of the world that we could create" Jekyll & Hyde

[Jay R. Zay]

what a perfect opportunity. let's say i was mentally labile and i knew your adress, i'd like to kill you. my fault? your fault for playing the smartass instead of trying to discuss sensibly about this matter. just as an example. perhaps not everybody you are talking to is perfectly balanced. :)

actually i doubt that you seriously understood what i was talking about in this "one huge post". correct?

[Flasha_tasha]

At the end of the day you can try to rehabilitate murders but what I was trying to get accross earlier was this does not always work. Therefore I don't believe we should chance letting the rehabilitate murders back into society to kill more innocent victims.

As for capital punishment, I think it is unfair that innocent people can be killed as a result of wrongful information so maybe there should be a better system in place to prevent this from happening. However I do believe that the guilty should be punished. If somebody killed someone close to me like my family then I would not like the thought of them being rehabilitated and put back into society. I think its unfair that the slaughtered loses their life and the culprit is given life in return. I mean really think about it Jay R. Zay could you really forgive someone who had murdered your family or someone close to you? Perhaps when they are reformed you'll invite them around for a nice cuppa and a chat about how he killed your loved ones???

[Jay R. Zay]

"I mean really think about it Jay R. Zay could you really forgive someone who had murdered your family or someone close to you?"

there is something that you perhaps achieve through different experiences, through different people you know, i don't know. you could call it an objective opinion. it means that you agree with things although they may not be the best for you. for example, i can support and agree to more rights for women although i don't have any advantage from it. in germany, if one woman and one man apply for a job and they both have the same qualification, the woman has to be employed until the company has reached a quota of 50% men and women. companies usually prefer male employees so why would it support this? because i know it's right.

would YOU forgive somebody who cheated to you and stole all your money so that you are living in the slums now? would YOU forgive a country that lied to you, sent you to war and after your family and friends died for it, it left you alone? how much humiliation would you accept? yes, these are the people you want to kill. sweet. so THEY don't have the right to be angry, they must not seek revenge, they can be happy the way they live, nothing left to live with. that doesn't give them the right to kill. but when they lose control, when they kill, you want revenge.

so what? shall we all live like we feel at the moment? is it okay to kill people because you are angry? is THIS the great excuse for death penalty? angy people?

yes, i WOULD want to see the murderer of my family or friends dead. but i have learned that not everything i want is right. those people are dangerous who don't see the difference between what they want and what is right. i don't want a woman to take my job, i don't want a foreigner to take my job, i don't want to pay taxes, i don't want to pay for my fuel, etc. . but SOME people nevertheless can see a difference here and know what's right and wrong. if some woman tried to get my job, i'd fight against it. yes. that's my right. in MY situation, i'd do what i want to do. but when i'm not concerned, i don't. so, yes, if somebody killed my family, i might just grab a knife and kill him. but i don't want this to be correct. i don't want my government to support this. i'll do what i want to do and therefore i will become a criminal myself. that's the way it is.

find out yourself. what a world would this be if everybody just did what he felt like? these murderers you want to kill DO so. and you hate them for this. on the other hand, you want to be like them.


"Therefore I don't believe we should chance letting the rehabilitate murders back into society to kill more innocent victims."

i have a better idea: everybody who is not satisfied with this society and this life gets locked up in jail. all these people are potential murderers and we don't want to give them a chance to kill innocent victims, should we? if we start killing everybody who might be a risk for our lives, should we not start killing death penalty? because here is the point:

let's say your husband got killed by the state of iowa although he was innocent but nobody cared. wouldn't you be angry now? and who is responsible? would you kill the president? oh, that's bad. or somebody from the american people who supports death penalty? or the judge? nobody because this is the law: he's dead, live with it. if people kill people -> revenge. if a whole country kills people -> no problem.

"maybe there should be a better system in place to prevent this from happening."

you really think there could be a "fair" system that only kills bad people? how would this work? who is "bad" anyway? i'm talking about victims of society. is some girl who got raped by a cop "bad" when she kills him? or when IS somebody bad? when someone else stole his whole money? when his wife two-timed him? what humiliation can you expect people to accept when you don't even accept murders that you aren't even involved in?

some guy in australia killed 17 women. did you know them? nope. yet you want him dead. do you know what you are saying? do you know that you aren't talking about something secondary but *death*? you don't know this guy, you don't know his victims but you want him dead.

but somebody who REALLY got humiliated in his life must not be angry, he must accept it all just to make you happy - otherwise you'll kill him. what a large-hearted opinion. you should become a dictator.

[westford]

If you're really sure that this man, for example, did killed another man with a gun shot in the head, than the most right thing in the world would be to shot him in th head, at the same way he did.
And what about the executioner? Wouldn't he/she be just as guilty then? :confused:

[Luisiana Jones]

Yes and he will be killed too and that will go on until there is no one alive, and thats the end of the world :D

[TommyJohnson]

Thanx Luisiana Jones, you posted the most funny answer tha post above yours deserved. ;)

[Pale Horse]

One of the interesting things about this whole discussion is the hubris that is being demonstrated by both sides that feel that the gift of life is something we can exert control over. I have not met one person who won't die. Laws are put in place to provide liberty. Live within the law, and you will have that liberty. Live outside the law, and that liberty should be denied. This has to be a black and white issue. If someone takes a life in malice, the consequence should be death.

Unfortunatley, there is no appreciation or understanding of law in our societies. Therefore we have scenarios that become "law" which strip our liberty through "situational ethics". Most of us have been taught the empirical process in our science classes. The same process must be applied when it comes to matters of law. If we can't approach the issue from that standpoint, then there will be no agreement.

[Luisiana Jones]

Thanx Luisiana Jones, you posted the most funny answer tha post above yours deserved. ;)

All yours ;)

[Jay R. Zay]

@Pale Horse: unfortunately, i don't understand your point.

[TommyJohnson]

@Pale Horse: unfortunately, i don't understand your point.
That's Marcus' fault. :D

[westford]

Thanx Luisiana Jones, you posted the most funny answer tha post above yours deserved. ;)
So don't I get a serious answer? It was a serious question.

[Luisiana Jones]

No because it wasnt serious at all. ;) Or at least it wasnt a very coherent one.

[Aaron H]

In a word, yes.
In a semi-long winded explanation...Yes, I am for the death penalty for when there it is beyond a shadow of a doubt and all recourse and legal fillings have been taken. When the evidence is so clear that no one else could have even remotely done the killing, then I say fry the person (or inject, gas, etc.)

Personally, I think we are too kind in the way that we execute criminals, they stole something that can never, ever be given back. They have changed the course of human history, and for that the punishment must be severe.

For instance, Scott Peterson. What he did was sickening, it was proven and decided upon (by a jury of his peers) that he and he alone killed his wife and unborn child, all the while having an affair with at least one other woman. He then led the authorities and the entire world to believe that some great tragedy had befallen him...when in reality he knew his wife's headless body was decomposing in the ocean to be eaten by animals. His unborn son, Conner, would never know what love was, the warmth of a mother's touch, he would never experience the trials that make us stronger. Would this son of a fertilizer dealer have grown up to be the one who solves world hunger? Cure life threatening diseases? We will never know now. All because one man felt that he, and he alone controled life and death in his blood stained hands.

Locking someone up for the rest of their life does nothing. They can still breathe, they are still warm (not sumberged in 35 degree water), they can still eat hot meals, and most of all they can feel.

Some say that locking someone up and throwing away the key makes them think about what they have done. Makes them mentally "pay" for their crime(s). Why would they even think about it, much less even care? For the most part, prison (these days) is nothing more than a bland world that takes care of your needs.

In death, there is at least some condolence that the murderer will never have the same chance to live normally as their victims once had.

[Colonel Vogel]

Well said Aaron H; people’s sympathy should be for the victims.

[Jay R. Zay]

"Well said Aaron H; people’s sympathy should be for the victims."

victims = people who were executed although they were innocent? after so many murders it would be time to kill their murderer: death penalty.

"When the evidence is so clear that no one else could have even remotely done the killing, then I say fry the person"

so 'kill the murderers who were too stupid to keep a little bit of doubt, let the others live'. right? in how many cases can you be 100% sure? many cases *look* 100% sure and they aren't. you can't distinguish between 100% sure and 99% sure. and for what crimes would you recommend death penalty? killing in self defence? in a single outbutst of anger in a situation that will never happen again? because of wrong education? because of mental illness?

if you can answer all these questions with "no" - could you imagine another possible situation? if you answer one of these with "yes" please explain why.

why would you want to kill them anyway? revenge? i thought we were over revenge... or does it heal the victims? probably not. does it scare people off? statistics say 'no'. so it's just this little awful instinct of revenge, isn't it? you'd like to see these people die. painfully at best, right? because it feels so good having people die. of course, people aren't allowed to kill for revenge in real life. but when the law wants them to die it gives you such a warm feeling inside, doesn't it?

"His unborn son, Conner, would never know what love was, the warmth of a mother's touch"

how poetic. that's what i love about these descriptions. they awaken the poet in each of us. it is so sad - the unborn child, that will never know what love is, that will never enjoy the warm winds of may under a deep blue sky on endless green meadows, the birds whispering in the trees,... . jesus what a monster does it take to kill an unborn child, right? or to perform an abortion...?

did you EVER have the idea that the murderer himself, if he was asked, might have liked your life better? you don't kill somebody just for fun. if HE had gotten the right DNA and the right education, the right experiences, HE could have enjoyed these warm winds of may and the love and all that stuff. do you get poetic here? doesn't this sound tragic to you? this poor man who was as unlucky as to be Scott Peterson - how about some dramatic story about him? "I say fry the person" isn't really the same quality, you know?

these poets... one more great example: "decomposing in the ocean to be eaten by animals". no! the dead body, eaten by animals! would you please explain to me what YOU believe what happens to buried bodies? are they conserved for eternity? do they move to heaven? do they disappear magically? get abducted by aliens? what happens to dead bodies two meters below ground after some time?

but it really sounds awful doesn't it? it's so impressive imagining this evil monster that lets his wife's body be eaten by animals... bah. scary. or how did you put it? "What he did was sickening". exactly. so many unborn children are killed every day and nobody cares, so many bodies are eaten by worms every day and nobody cares - but if evil Scott Peterson does this, we can all put it into one awful, "sickening" story. a real horror story. when i say "miss miller performed an abortion", nobody would come and say "oh no, this little boy will never enjoy the warm winds of may and a mother's loving touch!". when i say "my mother will be buried on our local cemetery", nobody would come and say "you can't do this, she will be eaten by animals". but when you place it in the right context, it all sums up to the picture of a monster you want to create.

or how about this: "Would this son of a fertilizer dealer have grown up to be the one who solves world hunger? Cure life threatening diseases? We will never know now."

yes! that's it! peterson killed the new einstein. let's make him responsible for this. or the new jesus! why not? it's not impossible. the chances are one in a trillion but who cares - it might be possible. he might solve world hunger, cure all diseases,... okay. that's the reason why somebody should not kill his son. why do you waste your time writing in this forum? why don't you check out all the girls you know and try to produce somebody who actually DOES solve world hunger, cure the diseases.... i mean, if you don't - you would be responsible, right? perhaps if you and... let's say jennifer lopez would breed some child that is this good but you never tried... i would be very disappointed about you. you really SHOULD do EVERYTHING to try jenny - who knows? it's kind of probable that exactly in this combination we might get jesus. exactly as probable as the assumption that the son of peterson would have been extraordinary and not just another McDonalds customer.


vogel was so clever as to mention sympathy with the victims. isn't a murderer a victim of society? yes, YOU don't have to kill somebody, I don't have to kill somebody either. good for us. but when we get into this situation, we both MIGHT kill somebody. are we monsters now?

somebody like you prefers thinking in disney categories. there are the good ones and the bad ones. you can kill the bad ones. the bad ones are bad because they are the bad ones. there is no reason for this. nobody is responsible. you just kill them and that's it. it's not like we should ask "why does somebody kill somebody else?". it's because they are the bad ones. that's easy and that's why it's so much fun seeing them die.

[Aaron H]

Your logic is flawed.

[Jay R. Zay]

at least there is logic :) but if you found some tangible flaws you are welcome to name them.

[Pale Horse]

@Pale Horse: unfortunately, i don't understand your point.


That is where you miss Aaron's note about your logic being flawed. You haven't addressed the fact that Law produces liberty, and therefore if you break the law there should be no liberty. You are using situational ethics to define a human, and human behavior. It becomes very cynicising (I know it's not a word). There is nothing to establish hope in a society without law.

For every situation you bring up, you are sending an unwritten message that one situation is better or worse than another. It becomes a value situation, and as you pointed out, that value system is flawed. To try to adhere to that is a most damaging practice that eventually strips morality of it power.

[TommyJohnson]

So don't I get a serious answer? It was a serious question.
I think you're confusing "serious" with "ridiculous". I mean, they're two different words, man. Check out the dictionary. You'll may have surprises. :D

[vaxer]

"Why do we kill people who are killing people, to show that killing people is wrong?" Holly Near

[Jay R. Zay]

"You haven't addressed the fact that Law produces liberty, and therefore if you break the law there should be no liberty."

"no liberty" isn't the same as death? why not introduce torture as well? why not introduce death penalty for stealing? with THIS explanation, do what you want with people who break the law. kill them, torture them, have fun.

"There is nothing to establish hope in a society without law."

i'm not attacking law (did YOU understand MY point?) i'm against death penalty. you know, there are some countries that don't have the death penalty and don't live in anarchy nevertheless. germany does very well without the death penalty and crime rates are *much* lower than in the US.

"For every situation you bring up, you are sending an unwritten message that one situation is better or worse than another."

i'm not talking about situations. aaron is. he doesn't say why death penalty in general is a good idea, he says that we have to fry the monsters that stole his son the opportunity to love and that let his wife's body be eaten by animals. i'm against the death penalty in every situation and the situation that aaron depicted was simply over-dramatized. we can discuss about death penalty sensibly but not just with rhetoric means. we are not writing a tragedy here we are discussion facts. or at least i am. there is no death penalty only for scott peterson. okay the fact that he let his wife be eaten by animals makes aaron angry. okay. but if THIS is a reason for killing somebody then why should i not kill anybody who buried his wife? or who sent his son so often to McDonalds that he might not experience love either because he isn't very attractive? so somebody with a fat son and a buried wife should get killed. or at least he is a monster. logic..? no. just rhetorical stuff. you can write books this way, or poems or make movies. but don't discuss with me in such a ridiculously poetic way, please.

this is what you should expect from a discussion. i'm very disappointed to see those things from the mods who should know better what a real discussion should look like...

[Pale Horse]

"You haven't addressed the fact that Law produces liberty, and therefore if you break the law there should be no liberty."

"no liberty" isn't the same as death? why not introduce torture as well? why not introduce death penalty for stealing? with THIS explanation, do what you want with people who break the law. kill them, torture them, have fun.

I am from the background that respects the Biblical perscriptions for law. It's how I was taught. Since this discussion is about the death penalty, you can not use a slippery slope arguement to suggest that the death penalty is acceptable for stealing. I do not make that claim, nor do most laws (save the extreme cultures we all know are wrong...let's not address those here)

The Biblical Law is that:
A:THOU SHALL NOT KILL (which means murder)
We can go into that at a different point, but we are all taking the premise that if one man willingly takes the life of another, it is murder. (If a person kills someone in self defense, they never get the death penalty anyway, so why even suggest it in as arguement)

and

B: Murder, Incest, Adultry, Beastiality, and the cursing of your mother and father are all punishable by death.
That's crazy, but I still believe that this particular thread is about murder only, so let's not use the other criteria and confuse the readers. This leaves those who murder should be killed.

an aside:
Biblical Law paraphrased also says eye for an eye, coat for a coat, pig for a pig...the punishment fits the crime. It is always balanced.

"There is nothing to establish hope in a society without law."

i'm not attacking law (did YOU understand MY point?) i'm against death penalty. This is your point, I do understand and respect it. I just don't understand some of the arguements you make for it and I am open minded enough to listen, provided you don't insult the process of communication.

and you know, there are some countries that don't have the death penalty and don't live in anarchy nevertheless. germany does very well without the death penalty and crime rates are *much* lower than in the US.

This is a low blow and I know that , but Germany had a bad few years from 1940-1945... and that far exceeds the foolish crime rates/and death rates combined for America.

"For every situation you bring up, you are sending an unwritten message that one situation is better or worse than another."

i'm not talking about situations. aaron is. he doesn't say why death penalty in general is a good idea, he says that we have to fry the monsters that stole his son the opportunity to love and that let his wife's body be eaten by animals. i'm against the death penalty in every situation and the situation that aaron depicted was simply over-dramatized. we can discuss about death penalty sensibly but not just with rhetoric means. we are not writing a tragedy here we are discussion facts. or at least i am. there is no death penalty only for scott peterson. okay the fact that he let his wife be eaten by animals makes aaron angry. okay. but if THIS is a reason for killing somebody then why should i not kill anybody who buried his wife? or who sent his son so often to McDonalds that he might not experience love either because he isn't very attractive? so somebody with a fat son and a buried wife should get killed. or at least he is a monster. logic..? no. just rhetorical stuff. you can write books this way, or poems or make movies. but don't discuss with me in such a ridiculously poetic way, please.

I appreciate you passion and your view about this. We all do. You are a strong minded member who contributes far more than fanboy meanderings to this board. Wanting to understand Aaron's reasoning is good. Pushing the bounds of discussion toward attacks of style or character is not, but it is forgivable.

this is what you should expect from a discussion. i'm very disappointed to see those things from the mods who should know better what a real discussion should look like...

I try not to have expectations because when you hold someone else responsible things they are not aware of, everyone gets frustrated. For the record if this thread has to be moderated or closed, I would hope the community at large will be able to see the difference between participating in a discussion, and having to pull the reins in on it.

[Jay R. Zay]

"Since this discussion is about the death penalty, you can not use a slippery slope arguement to suggest that the death penalty is acceptable for stealing."

i think you were the one who brought up this "slippery slope argument", weren't you? you said death penalty is okay because people who didn't obey the law don't have rights anymore. but this is not a good argument, which is what i wanted to prove because it opens the doors for torture and you can disobey the law in many ways, not just with murder.

i think you need to accept that the bible was made a very long time ago where the world looked different. the bible says a lot of things that you would not want to use today - so why use the bible to justify death penalty?this is no explanation, this is barely an excuse.

"This is a low blow and I know that , but Germany had a bad few years from 1940-1945... and that far exceeds the foolish crime rates/and death rates combined for America."

poor historical knowledge and poor argument. germany had a bad few years for 1933-1945 or, referring to WWII, from 1939-1945. death penalty was abolished in germany in 1949. so if you'd like to use WWII as an argument: WWII broke out during the death penalty period in germany. which (unfortunately for you) rather supports my point.

if you are interested, in east germany, death penalty was abolished in 1987 and the German Democratic Republic ("DDR", the east part) was very much a nazi like regime that among many other crimes for example killed people for their political views. so east germany had a few more bad years - with death penalty. two years later, in 1989, germany was reunited, which saved the DDR from collapse.


i for one appreciate the way you approach this matter, unfortunately i can't really say i tolerate your point of view as life itself is a matter i take very seriously. for me, death penalty is legalized murder and i very much refuse to "agree on disagreeing" in this question. i'd be the first to allow other opinions about any matter. but discussing the right to live of other human beings is not just a matter of opinions, or at least it is not to me. in this discussion it may just be opinions but you (and anybody else defending death penalty) should not forget that men and women die by your words. to quote marcus, this is not something to be taken lightly. yes this is a board where people meet who - more or less - agree on Indiana Jones. but in such a topic, it is not suprising that there is a heated debate. after all this is not about a movie. i think, the quality of such a thread should not be based on "friendliness" but on facts. personally, i don't expect anybody here (in this thread) to be extraordinarly friendly if he doesn't feel like it. but i was missing some neutral content in aarons reply. of course we are all biased but this should not turn into a plainly rhetoric argument that is just about "who can present his point more imposingly.

[Aaron H]

No insult, Jay R. Zay, however, I would prefer it if you type my name correctly, Aaron. A nitpick, I know, but I will show you respect if you will.

I don't quite understand how you missed my underlying point. I used the Peterson case as an example...not as the rule.

I in no way implied that those who bury their dead should be executed...you took an idea waaaaaay out of context and harped upon it...if Lacy Peterson had died of natural causes and her request was to be buried at sea, then I have no problem with that, but in this case it was not her request to die, much less dumped in the ocean.

I also thought that my stance on the issue of why I stand for capital punishment was clear: someone (the murderer) has deprived someone else (the victim) of their chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (for all of you history people out there). That right is certain, and unalienable, therefore such a grievous crime deserves grievous action taken accordingly.

I do not believe that the farce of a senario that you congoured up would qualify for a death sentence...perhaps he needs a stern talking and a diet book, but that is about it. :whip:


i think you need to accept that the bible was made a very long time ago where the world looked different. the bible says a lot of things that you would not want to use today - so why use the bible to justify death penalty?this is no explanation, this is barely an excuse.

How is this "barely an excuse"? Nearly half of the world's population believe in and follow the Bible's teachings. Does that make them wrong too? Attacking personal beliefs just shows that you are short on logical arguments.
Using your logic, we should also disregard US Consitution or perhaps the Magna Carta, they are old (and by some considered outdated) and the world of then looked different too.

Attacking personal opinion simply because you disagree with it (and without logical follow up) is not the way to have a mature discussion about a serious issue.

We have a simple rule here, attack the post (ie content, logic, etc), but not the poster (ie personal beliefs, ideologies, personality).

[Webley]

Well it all depends am I the one being put to death? Or is it some one else?

[Jay R. Zay]

"I in no way implied that those who bury their dead should be executed..."

i know. but this would be the direct consequence of what you critisized about peterson.

"but in this case it was not her request to die, much less dumped in the ocean."

much less? i think you get a little bit mixed up with your priorities. as for me, the problem is about the murder, not about the method or burial. but you extensively talked about this while mentioning the actual crime just as an introductory fact. and the stress you put on the way he "buried" his wife and he stole his son's carreer as the savior of the world was nothing more but rhetorical filling.

"chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

here we go again. why not say he killed them? but there it is: the pursuit of happiness. it's so tragic - not just that he killed them, he stole them the chance to be happy. statements like this take you away from neutral facts and make this a personal matter of hate, revenge, whatever.

"Nearly half of the world's population believe in and follow the Bible's teachings."

pale horse himself said that he didn't agree to all the bible says. so why should we HAVE to take death penalty from the bible when we can leave out other things? this isn't an explanation. you can say "because it's in the bible" when you agree to EVERYTHING from the bible - not just to selected parts.

"Using your logic, we should also disregard US Consitution or perhaps the Magna Carta, they are old (and by some considered outdated) and the world of then looked different too."

i didn't say "disregard everything that is old". apart from this i actually DO think that some of the US laws could use some face lifting. i just said that you should never use anything blindly that was written thousands of years ago. some things can be outdated and you should always make sure they aren't before you use them. i'm afraid many people aren't this critical about the contents of the bible.

"Attacking personal opinion simply because you disagree with it (and without logical follow up) is not the way to have a mature discussion about a serious issue."

i've explained the point. i even could accept (although it would be hard) a real explanation for death penalty that is based on hard facts. but as long as you keep telling us fairy tales about the wonderful life and the evil murderers that kill all the unborn Einsteins we'll never meet, i doubt that you can critisize the way i'm defending my point here.

"We have a simple rule here, attack the post (ie content, logic, etc), but not the poster (ie personal beliefs, ideologies, personality)."

this rule is not so simple as you might think: this thread IS about personal beliefs and ideologies. if you can't stand that this is the subject of a discussion - keep out of it. you can't come in here, tell us stories and then say "no, you must not say this, this is about my personal belief". you joined this discussion and now you are in it. i didn't ask you to do so. furthermore i think i've done a decent job attacking the content and logic of your post. you, on the other hand, simply said "Your logic is flawed.". did you think this was enough? why don't you (for example) give us some kind of an explanation for the way you've described peterson's murder?

you and pale horse have the same opinion about this and i agree with neither of you (not even a little bit) but at least - i have to admit his - pale horse does his best to come up with serious points and not just with empty poetic phrases.

[Pale Horse]

We may never resolve or differences on this issue, and I am okay with that. I hope that we all will benefit from these sorts of difficult endeavors. I think I can truly say I am thankful that I am not in a position where I have to decide the fate of that which we are discussing. Should I ever be, I trust that I could call on my Raven brothers and sisters to talk about it... :)

and just an aside:

"Nearly half of the world's population believe in and follow the Bible's teachings."

pale horse himself said that he didn't agree to all the bible says...

Actully I said "Thats crazy", but I understand it probably wasn't the best choice of words. I do agree with the Bible, but I am just too nescient to understand some of it's principles...but we can carry that whole topic in another thread.

[Pale Horse]

Well it all depends am I the one being put to death? Or is it some one else?

Thanks for the smile, Web, you're on a roll tonight... :)

[vaxer]

I'm no bible specialist, but I hardly see how it supports the death penalty in any way. If the bible says "thou shall not kill", isnt the state (which is the legal representation of us citizens) going against God's law?

Personally I don't support the capital punishment. For me its nothing but legal murder. It also supports "an eye for an eye" which gives a bad example and disrespects the complexity of human relationships.

[Jay R. Zay]

"I'm no bible specialist, but I hardly see how it supports the death penalty in any way. If the bible says "thou shall not kill", isnt the state (which is the legal representation of us citizens) going against God's law?"

i'm not sure either and i really see this commandment as a good religious point against death penalty. yet i think it is widely accepted that this refers to murder. from your (and my own) point of view, death penalty is murder and for this reason is against god's law. to the supporters of death penalty, death penalty is not murder but legal punishment and for this reason not affected by the 5th commandment.

For me its nothing but legal murder. It also supports "an eye for an eye" which gives a bad example and disrespects the complexity of human relationships.

that's the way i see it, too.

[westford]

I think you're confusing "serious" with "ridiculous". I mean, they're two different words, man. Check out the dictionary. You'll may have surprises. :D
You're the one who said someone who shot another person in the head should be shot in the head... :rolleyes:

[Colonel Vogel]

Yes! Killing, no matter what, is wrong. Doesn't your bible teach you such? Also that "Mine is the justice" or some such? I think life in prison is a severe enough punishment enough for any crime-- that we need not risk putting an innocent man to death. At the same time, we risk sentencing an innocent man to life in prison-- which is, to some people worse than death. :dead:

I think we have to give those sentenced to life the option of being put to death, as an alternative spending their lives in prison. There are worse things you can do to the guy than kill him. Make him work his ass off for the rest of his life and put him in a 3 x 4 dirty cell with no TV, radio, reading material, social interaction with other inmates, etc. Wake him up at 5:00am and put him to work. Make him work a 16-hour day, then put him back in his cell. Make his life a pure living hell for the next 70 years. :D

[Jay R. Zay]

please tell me vogel: how many different opinions do you have of this subject? perhaps i'm a little bit too inflexible for you but for me it gets kind of confusing after some time.

[Colonel Vogel]

please tell me vogel: how many different opinions do you have of this subject? perhaps i'm a little bit too inflexible for you but for me it gets kind of confusing after some time.

I supported the death penalty when I was about 18, naive, and Republican. I've grown up since then, and found that it's cost prohibitive, it causes innocent death, it doesn't deter crime, and it devalues human life. The only benefit is a feeling of revenge for the family, and a feeling of superiority and self-righteousness for radio talk show fans. None of those are worth the cost. ;)

Forgetting "bleeding-heart," there simply are no sound, logical reasons for keeping the death penalty. That's why the arguments you hear for it are emotional, and fail to persuade. Also, the criminal justice system, as has been mentioned is wrong-headed in approach. The goal should be rehabilitation and job training, but any proposals in that direction by politicians, and they're hit as "soft on crime." Also, non-violent convicted felons shouldn't lose the right to vote… :D

[Jay R. Zay]

"I supported the death penalty when I was about 18, naive, and Republican."

was this about... uhm... yesterday? or two weeks ago? jesus, you've grown up fast...

[Luisiana Jones]

does that mean that if you are republican and in favor of death penalty, u are naive :confused: well then more than half the US is that age, go party go go go! :D

[Indyologist]

If I felt the cirumstances of the crime merited it, yes.

[Overthrow]

The death penalty is not about revenge at all, it is punishment. We don't execute anyone who is not mentally capable of understanding that they are being punished for their crimes. If we lived in a less civil society wherein the only reason to carry out a death penalty was revenge and appeasement for the bereft, then we would still be living in the age of firing squads and nooses - or we would dare more Middle Eastern methods. We don't.

Modern executions are physically painless, sterile, and emotionless, which is how the entire judiciary should be. There will be those who are either appalled or enthralled by the act of killing another human being, especially if the criminal is perceived as either society's worst scum or most misunderstood. Those people are misleading themselves by their own conjecture, painting every criminal with a very broad brush. Some might kill their wife because society says it is improper to divorce her, some might kill their wife because they fear the child growing in her womb, some might kill their wife because they wonder what her pretty face would look like sewn into a pillow, some might kill their wife because they had an argument over putting the top back on the toothepaste. But in first degree murder cases, the "why" doesn't matter when a bad man is alive and a good woman is dead. Punishment is in order.

The cold, hard fact is that those found guilty in the legal system are guilty, and America is one of the few civilized nations whose courts presume innocence and not guilt. With modern methods of condoning the death penalty, such as collecting DNA evidence during a trial, our Judges can be more confident than they have ever been in the past that they will not be ordering an innocent to their undeserved death.

A lifetime spent in prison is acceptable in some cases, but what is its purpose? Eventually we have eighty year old men on life support being held captive from their relations and society who can't even remember their crime. That is far more cruel and unusual than simply putting a detriment to society to their final peace after adequate time has passed for new evidence to surface to prove a persons' innocence, or not.

[Jay R. Zay]

unfortunately, i have to contradict you in this point:

I also think that with today's technology, it is almost inconcievable to imagine an innocent being sentenced to death.

some time ago, i posted here:
i don't have topical data about this but the last report i read (some years old) named 14 people, just in iowa, who were killed during the previous year and turned out to be innocent.

i should add that this report was written by somebody in favor of the death penalty. still i think that 14 people per year per state is not a very good quota and i believe that somebody who writes this to support death penalty probably would not pick the worst example when talking about the state of iowa.

PS: i have not forgotten about the fact that this report was a couple of years old but technology didn't improve so much since 2000/2001 (i can't tell for sure) that you were able to decrease 14 innocent victims per year per state to zero. also, you should make yourself clear that those 14 people only were the ones who really inarguably turned out to be innocent. which doesn't mean that everybody else is definitely guilty.

in germany (sorry to warm my country up again, take any other EU country instead if you like to), in this case we can release the people and pay them compensation. in your case, the guy is dead (or 14 guys, in iowa, to be accurate). bad luck for him.

this is one of the reasons why i'm really not in favor of such a system. plus, of course, the fact that it doesn't decrease the crime rate as the USA have one of the highest crime rates in the civilized world, but this is not the point i'm after right now. what i'm after is that death penalty is a murderer as well. perhaps some of you think that law enforcement is worth an annual body count of perhaps 700 (14*50) innocent people. i do not. every day, you kill at least two innocent people. and you don't save anybody from getting killed this way. this is not my idea of law and order. and i wouldn't be able to lead a carefree life in a country where i have to worry about being sentenced to death everyday despite being innocent. strange but true, i'd rather be killed by a criminal for money than by my country for the bloodthirst of its people.

[Rae-deemer]

I must say this, it's possible for an innocent person to be miss-sentenced. DNA evidence has a a holy trilogy that investigators tend to follow. Sometimes, actually more time then believed, an innocent person fits into this holy trilogy.


I don't agree with the death penalty. I think that death is an easy way out. If something happened to some one I love, I would want them to suffer. I think that the jail system here is far to "nice" inmates. The jail system is what needs to change.

[Rae-deemer]

Can you tall us more about this "Holy Trilogy"? I'm unfamilair with the term. I also agree that the prison's are like get away retreats for some of these skumbags. If they commit a horrible crime I say lock them in a cell just high enough and wide enough forn them to stand in a 2X2' square. Let em' sleep in a catchers crouch.


Holy Trilogy
1. Suspect
2. Motive
3. Evidence


It doesn't take much for an innocent person to fit in those three catagories.

[Rae-deemer]

I kind of disagree.

1. Suspect: Okay this one can certainly pin the blame on several different people.

2. Motive: Again, I can see where two different people may have the motive to kill one person.

3. Evidence: Here's where we have the problem. Other than circumstancial evidence (which can never get someone the death penalty) it's hard to have so much evidence point to one person. Hair, carpet fibers, blood, finger prints, semen, you put all of these together or even 3 or 4 out of 5, and chances are better than 99.999% that you have the right skumbag.

If the person has a motive, that ussually means that one way or another they now the vic. They could leave plenty of dna evidence at the scene of crime. Dna, finger prints are easy to come by.

[Jay R. Zay]

Jay, I think it's also important to say that these 14 innocent people were most likely sentenced anywhere between 1979 and 1988, long before DNA egan to prove killers guilty. I would say that today, the chances of that convicted person being guilty are about 99.9999999%. They would never sentence anyone to death today without tons and tons of legal proof coupled with DNA evidence.

if somebody is sentenced because of DNA traces, this will surely increase the fairness. but DNA traces can be faked, some people can leave DNA traces that don't have anything to do with the murder at all (as an example i recommend the movie "insomnia", at least the al pacino remake) and we know that DNA tests can bring wrong results. and in many cases, there simply aren't any useful DNA traces so people are sentenced in the traditional way. as i've said, the report was rather new, around 2001, it was referring to data from the year before, surely not earlier than 1990. and you can't deny that, one way or another, innocent people still are sentenced - even to death. and as death penalty, unlike any other penalty in the civilized world, is irreversible, even a single innocent victim of such a system per year per state (not 14) would be too much for me. if the system itself starts killing innocent people, we don't need murderers anymore. like the saying "with such friends, you don't need enemies anymore" - with such a system to protect you, you don't need criminals anymore.

i mean, what would YOU do with somebody who kills 2 innocent people per day, knowing he does, ignoring the fact? usually, you are pretty strict with people who act without high level ethics. 2 dead people per day, every day of the year - this could make most serial killers jealous.