Should there be a death penalty?

[IglooDame]

I would still argue in favor of a 'coma penalty' than a death penalty. But failing that, I think that a death penalty remains appropriate for certain crimes, though I'd like the standard used to apply it to be raised much much higher (like juries being required to cite "we're so sure that that evildoer should get the chair, that we're willing to take a one in a thousand chance that we will also be executed too" when calling for capital punishment).

 

[Masquerouge]

The death penalty is:
- not a deterrent
- irreversible
- a quick fix that does not address the roots of the problem (but this is true of all the current justice systems).

So I'm against it.

 

[MobBoss]

I would still argue in favor of a 'coma penalty' than a death penalty.

Very interesting concept. Kinda reminds me of what they did for the capital criminals in "Demolition Man".....they cryogenically froze them in a big block of ice for the duration of their sentence.

But failing that, I think that a death penalty remains appropriate for certain crimes, though I'd like the standard used to apply it to be raised much much higher (like juries being required to cite "we're so sure that that evildoer should get the chair, that we're willing to take a one in a thousand chance that we will also be executed too" when calling for capital punishment).

I think that is totally reasonable.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd like the standard used to apply it to be raised much much higher (like juries being required to cite "we're so sure that that evildoer should get the chair, that we're willing to take a one in a thousand chance that we will also be executed too" when calling for capital punishment).

That's awesome!

(I need to find that thread where people stated if they'd push a button which could kill them, but would give them money)

 

[Marla_Singer]

2 people out of all of history isnt a 'trend' or a 'amazing larger proportion'. And its no longer the 1920s....our forensics is a tad bit better today.

I don't know why but I have the feeling you would consider things differently if you happened to be one of these 2. Actually, even if there were only 2 - which isn't the case - that would already be too much.

But anyway, these 2 are just examples because we made a movie about them. Again, their case is unfortunately not unique. The governer Ryan of the state of Illinois decided to stop with death penalty in 2003 for the sole reason that too many people in the death row were found innocent. Indeed, for Illinois only, a total of 18 people were found out innocent since 1976 on the death row.

Here are nationwide statistics of people found out innocent in the death row since 1976 in the US:

Alabama: 5
Arizona: 6
California: 3
Florida: 21
Georgia: 5
Idaho: 1
Illinois: 18
Indiana: 2
Kentucky: 1
Louisiana: 8
Maryland: 1
Massachussetts: 3
Mississippi: 1
Missouri: 3
Nebraska: 1
Nevada: 1
New Mexico: 4
North Carolina: 5
Ohio: 2
Oklahoma: 7
Pennsylvania: 6
South Carolina: 2
Texas: 8
Virginia: 1
Washington: 1

A total of 116 detainees were found out innocent in the death row since 1976 in the United States. How many of them have been killed before being found innocent? We will never know, but saying there hasn't been any would prove a great trust in a judicial system which has sent at least 116 innocents in the death row since 1976.

And here's the link:
http://deadlinethemovie.com/state/AL/index.php

Here's to you Nicola and Bart
Rest forever here in our hearts
The last and final moment is yours
That agony is your triumph

 

[MobBoss]

I don't know why but I have the feeling you would consider things differently if you happened to be one of these 2. Actually, even if there were only 2 - which isn't the case - that would already be too much.

But anyway, these 2 are just examples because we made a movie about them, their case is unfortunately not unique. The governer Ryan of the state of Illinois decided to stop with death penalty in 2003 for the sole reason that too many people in the death row were found innocent. Indeed, for Illinois only, a total of 18 people were found out innocent since 1976 on the death row.

Here are nationwide statistics of people found out innocent in the death row since 1976 in the US:

Alabama: 5
Arizona: 6
California: 3
Florida: 21
Georgia: 5
Idaho: 1
Illinois: 18
Indiana: 2
Kentucky: 1
Louisiana: 8
Maryland: 1
Massachussetts: 3
Mississippi: 1
Missouri: 3
Nebraska: 1
Nevada: 1
New Mexico: 4
North Carolina: 5
Ohio: 2
Oklahoma: 7
Pennsylvania: 6
South Carolina: 2
Texas: 8
Virginia: 1
Washington: 1

A total of 116 detainees were found out innocent in the death row since 1976 in the United States. How many of them have been killed before being found innocent? We will never know, but saying there hasn't been any would prove a great trust in a judicial system which has sent at least 116 innocents in the death row since 1976.

Again...link please. I often find that what a poster offers isnt quite what is on the link. For example, there is 'innocense' and then there is 'we made an error and had to let them go although there is still a lot of proof they are guilty'. Can I examine where you got this please.

 

[scherbchen]

And fwiw its 'thou shalt not murder'. Not 'thou shalt not kill'. If it were 'kill' we would be a whole bunch of vegetarians.

Actually, the King James Bible says that I guess. How about the original version (greek, wasn't it?). How was that specific word there used 2k years ago? You can be really anal about it and demand the original source text and look at that (that would be two stone tablets, good luck finding those).

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, the King James Bible says that I guess. How about the original version (greek, wasn't it?).

Not greek. Hebrew. The original root word definitely means murder...not just kill.

How was that specific word there used 2k years ago? You can be really anal about it and demand the original source text and look at that (that would be two stone tablets, good luck finding those).

I have. Not the stone tablets that is, but researched the meaning of the original root word using a biblical concordance. I encourage you to look it up for yourself if you doubt it.

Plus, it just makes sense if you really think about it. Remember, the ancient Hebrews were fairly aggressive.....it would be kind of hard to fight a war if one of your primary rules was 'thou shalt not kill'. But as killing in war isnt murder, then thats the explanation.

 

[MobBoss]

I
And here's the link:
http://deadlinethemovie.com/state/AL/index.php

Please dont tell me you are using a link to a documentary (an extremely biased documentary at that) as proof?

Also, the link gives no details of individual cases...in other words it treats murderers who may have gotten off death row due to a legal technicality as 'innocent'.

Please realize that individuals that win on appeal while on death row dont automatically garner the label 'innocent'. Nor does that indicate that they 'had the wrong person'....it could very well mean that they have the right person, but not enough evidence or made a mistake so that the conviction gets reversed on appeal.

By the way, the fact that people do win on appeal is more evidence that the system is working as it should as opposed to excuting innocent people. I would be more troubled of the death penalty system if no one had ever won on appeal.....

 

[LucyDuke]

Lucy takes off shoe, dips toe in water.

Death penalties do not belong in a democratic society. That's why I think death penalty should be abandoned in the US, otherwise we can't really say it's a truly democratic country...

How does the death penalty negate democracy?

It isn't about what is best for society it is what is the best form of revenge.

No. The best form of revenge would be to inflict upon the criminal whatever he inflicted upon his victim, but we don't do that because we're grown-ups with some respect for human life.

What if our science progress' to the point where it eliminates all mistakes? That all of those put to death are actually guilty.

Would you be in favor of it then?

Because I think we are approaching that point to be honest.

That kind of faith in science is just that... faith. And faith isn't very scientific. I don't think we'll ever progress to the point where we can eliminate all mistakes. We can never eliminate human error, and we can never separate human interaction from human affairs. Perhaps we can eliminate almost all mistakes, but we can never be perfect. Some might even say only God can be perfect, huh?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Please dont tell me you are using a link to a documentary (an extremely biased documentary at that) as proof?

Also, the link gives no details of individual cases...in other words it treats murderers who may have gotten off death row due to a legal technicality as 'innocent'.

All people listed have been fully released from jail. In the case of Illinois it is specified that the governor Ryan commuted every death sentence in the state, clearing death row as he left office in 2003. Yet the only one being told innocent by the website on that year in Illinois was Aaron Patterson. He's been released on January 10, 2003. You have the name of the 116 people who've been found innocent in the death row. They are all named by the website. Just type their name on google and tell me again they are criminals. It's very easy to check.

By the way, the fact that people do win on appeal is more evidence that the system is working as it should as opposed to excuting innocent people. I would be more troubled of the death penalty system if no one had ever won on appeal.....

Ironically, in some states such as Illinois, we find more innocent people in death row than in killing frenzy Texas. Weird huh? Does that mean that all people released in Illinois weren't innocent? Does that mean that some innocent people are still executed in Texas? Maybe both? Who knows?

You can turn things the way you want. It's obvious the system isn't infallible. And please, stop being that despiseful in your posts. Don't believe that people who don't agree with you are necessarily naive. It's never smart to underestimate others.

 

[LucyDuke]

Also, the link gives no details of individual cases...in other words it treats murderers who may have gotten off death row due to a legal technicality as 'innocent'.

Please realize that individuals that win on appeal while on death row dont automatically garner the label 'innocent'. Nor does that indicate that they 'had the wrong person'....it could very well mean that they have the right person, but not enough evidence or made a mistake so that the conviction gets reversed on appeal.

If they're not guilty, they're innocent. That's the way it works in this wonderful country.

 

[MobBoss]

Nope that's wrong. In the case of Illinois it is specified that the governor Ryan commuted every death sentence in the state, clearing death row as he left office in 2003.

That doesnt mean they were innocent.

And the only one being told innocent by the website on that year in Illinois was Aaron Patterson. He's been released on January 10, 2003. You have the name of the 116 people who've been found out innocent in the death row. They are all named by the website. Just type their name on google and tell me again they are criminals. It's very easy to check.

Again, what you point out is why death penalty cases take so long and have a required appeal process. In Aaron Pattersons case, the system worked to identify a corrupt police officer and consequently free a number of prisoners that had been tortured to plead guilty to crimes they didnt commit.

To me, this is evidence that we go great lengths to ensure that innocents are not executed....not as evidence that we wrongfully execute innocents.

Ironically, in some states such as Illinois, we find more innocent people in death row than in killing frenzy Texas. Weird huh?

Not weird. Not every states death penalty rules are the same. Perhaps Texas enjoys less corruption and more accuracy.

Does that mean that all people released in Illinois weren't innocent? Does that mean that some innocent people are still executed in Texas? Maybe both? Who knows?

I personally would find it quite naive to think that everyone that was released from death row was innocent.

You can turn things the way you want. It's obvious the system isn't infallible.

I never made that allegation. But in my opinion, its infallible enough. Your evidence itself shows that we go to great lengths to ensure innocent people dont get executed.

 

[MobBoss]

If they're not guilty, they're innocent. That's the way it works in this wonderful country.

Innocent until proven guilty. Being proven guilty and then getting off on a technicality isnt quite the same as being innocent in my book.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I never made that allegation. But in my opinion, its infallible enough. Your evidence itself shows that we go to great lengths to ensure innocent people dont get executed.

Great length? People are sent to the death row with as single evidence an anonymous call accusing them to be guilty!

Anyone can do that to anyone. It's really easy...

 

[ParadigmShifter]

What happened to the corrupt police officer? Has he been executed yet?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Great length? People are sent to the death row with as single evidence an anonymous call accusing them to be guilty!

Anyone can do that to anyone. It's really easy...

When did this happen? In the United States you are innocent until proven guilty and I am sure it is the same in France so I doubt an anonymous phone call would lead to a conviction much less a death sentence.

 

[scherbchen]

Not greek. Hebrew.

hmm, true. confused the bible with the new testament there.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

hmm, true. confused the bible with the new testament there.

The New Testament IS part of the Bible, silly. But it wasn't written in Greek, either, it was written in Aramaic and Hebrew. The Bible was only translated into Greek in the Fourth Century AD.

 

[scherbchen]

it is part of the bible? wow I never knew that. really. honestly.... *puppy eyes*

and no, silly, it is a common misconception that this part was written in aramaic. it was a work meant to be used by missionaries. while the part where it, supposedly, has been written was part of the Roman empire it was still heavily under the influence of the Greek culture (as were the Romans) and Latin -not to even to mention Aramaic or Hebrew- was not the predominant language in those parts. pretty hard to preach a new religion if the language you preach it in is despised and/or largely unknown by the common people, which was target audience of Christianity. only later was it translated into Latin.

all this from the receiving end of my latin professor at university. i'll take his word for it, thank you very much.