Death Penalty--pros and cons

[Shattered]

Why do they need to be let out to walk in a circle? They have a 6x6 room to walk around in.

 

[mattskramer]

I am against capital punishment but I think that convicted killers should be sentenced to a lifetime of labor in prison. They should get a real life sentence filled with hard work to help pay for their keep – not 20 or 30 years of simple room and board.

People argue about whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent. They argue about possible racial bias. They come up with other possible reasons why capital punishment should not be allowed. I don’t entertain such debates. The convincing factor for why I oppose the death penalty is the possibility of executing an innocent person.

I would rather have 1,000,000 serial killers spend a lifetime in jail (while they work to earn their keep as best they can) than to execute someone who was really innocent of the crime for which he was accused.

Since 1973, over 80 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.

I guess that if such evidence was never brought to the authorities’ attention, then such people really did commit the crimes. Now, that might make sense to some people here.

 

[Shattered]

What "work" can they possibly do? Anything they can do to earn their keep can be done by someone that actually *needs* a job to survive.

 

[mattskramer]

What "work" can they possibly do? Anything they can do to earn their keep can be done by someone that actually *needs* a job to survive.

I doubt that they could actually do enough labor to fully earn their keep, but it would be better to have inmates do some work rather than have them do practically nothing productive. They could build and clean their own cells, make and sell items, and do various other things. To save taxpayer money, I would also remove television, elective and cosmetic surgery, and other unnecessary conveniences that are basically free to them.

In a nutshell, I think that convicted murderers should spend life in jail. At the same time, we should find ways to make their keep as cheap as possible to honest, law-abiding citizens.

Perhaps we should re-evaluate some of the laws against “victimless crimes”. Would it be less costly to legalize marijuana, thereby freeing up jail space for “true criminals”, or would the taxpayer cost be simply passed to drug- rehab centers.

It is just a possible way to save money – thereby reducing the strength of one reason to execute those convicted of murder.

Bottom line – I still oppose capital punishment. I’d rather have 1,000,000 people convicted of cereal murder spend life in jail than risk the execution of an innocent person.

 

[Shattered]

There's the chance that even 1 of those 1mil people you have convicted for murder will get out via good behavior, or some glitch in the system.. Then what?

I'd just rather they're not a potential problem. For anyone. For every moment you leave them alive, and for every dollar that you spend on their upkeep, that's one moment and/or one dollar that could have gone to a much more worthwhile cause. Our prisons are overcrowded as it is.. Start nuking some of the bastards on death row.

Personally, I think if you're put on death row in 1995, you should be ash by the end of 1995 at the lastest. Convicted in Jan 1995? Ash by Dec. 31st, 1995. Convicted in Nov. 1995? Ash by Dec. 31st 1996.

Maybe then some people will straighten the hell up. Why would they have it any better than some homeless person? And by better, I mean something as simple as a warm place to sleep.

 

[mattskramer]

There's the chance that even 1 of those 1mil people you have convicted for murder will get out via good behavior, or some glitch in the system.. Then what?

I'd just rather they're not a potential problem. For anyone. For every moment you leave them alive, and for every dollar that you spend on their upkeep, that's one moment and/or one dollar that could have gone to a much more worthwhile cause. Our prisons are overcrowded as it is.. Start nuking some of the bastards on death row.

Personally, I think if you're put on death row in 1995, you should be ash by the end of 1995 at the lastest. Convicted in Jan 1995? Ash by Dec. 31st, 1995. Convicted in Nov. 1995? Ash by Dec. 31st 1996.

Maybe then some people will straighten the hell up. Why would they have it any better than some homeless person? And by better, I mean something as simple as a warm place to sleep.

Under my watch, none of the 1 million inmates would get out early unless they were later proven to be innocent of their crimes. I stated that I would have a life sentence be a life sentence. I don't think that any criminal should be released early due to "good behavior". The only way that a "lifer" would be free is if proof eventually appeared that cleared him of the crime.

Deathrow inmates wouldn't be a potential problem. They would remain in something little more than a cage for the rest of their lives. As I said, I would remove much of their luxuries and have them do work. We could possibly save more dollars and free-up room in our jails by changing the law to release criminals of "victimless crimes".

I think that by (1.) cutting the conveniences that convicts enjoy at taxpayer expence and by (2.) changing the laws so that criminals of at least some "victimless crimes" would be released, we could house more people convicted of violent crimes longer without increasing the cost to the taxpayer.

You would limit the time for deathrow inmates to 1 year - 365 days in which to possibly clear their names?!? Wow. Such a rule would have resulted in the execution of at least several people who were proven to be innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted.

I would not have a prisoner's life be any more comfortable than that of a homeless person.

 

[Shattered]

You would limit the time for deathrow inmates to 1 year - 365 days in which to possibly clear their names?!?

If they didn't clear their name the first time, there's not too much of a chance of them clearing it later.

Generally, violent criminals being convicted are the results of some pretty strong DNA evidence...

 

[Bonnie]

A time to kill
Doug Giles

April 23, 2005


Ecclesiastes states, “There is an appointed time for everything … a time to give birth and a time to die; a time to embrace and a time to shun embracing,” and among other things, … there is, “a time to kill.” Guess what time I think it is for John Evander Couey and David Onstott?

With our nation’s attention rightly riveted on the macabre murders of little Jessica Lundsford and Sarah Lunde, I think I just heard the clock strike Death:30 for the irretrievable duo who carried out these sickening slayings. I question the humanity, sanity, and if you’re religious, the sanctity, of everyone who vies for sustaining the lives of Couey and Onstott, the confessed murderers of 10-year-old Jessica and 13-year-old Sarah.

In addition to it being a time to kill these two sacks of dung, I think the judicial morons who previously gave wispy sentences to such dregs and released them without performing a chemical castration and a phallectomy with a rusty fork, and without branding SOB on these losers’ foreheads, ought to go directly to prison for aiding and abetting these bastards. And I use the word bastard in a biblical sense.

Furthermore, I believe Kelly Lunde, Sarah’s mom, who actually dated Onstott, the convicted rapist who eventually killed her daughter, who didn’t report her child missing for two, that’s two, days, should to be forced to spend a few years in the Stupid Ward of What Were You Thinking Hospital.

Y’know, it’s amazing to me that these two recidivist rapists were allowed to free range while our legal wizards felt the need to Lojack Martha Stewart and treat her like Hannibal Lecter for lying. I would venture to say that the scales of justice are now more unbalanced in the United States of Asininity than Margot Kidder trying to work a treadmill after a quart of corn liquor.

Let me see if I’m getting this “sage” judicial insight right. Tight-leashing a 60-year-old billionaire blonde Jurassic diva in her multi-million dollar mansion is a must, and letting Chester the Molester run free and relatively unsupervised to skulk our schoolyards, playgrounds, ice cream parlors and churches is okay?

What the heck is wrong with us?

How many raped pre-pubescent girls have to be buried alive in shallow graves before we enact lethal Moses-like sanctions on these nightcrawlers and send them quickly to a just God who will, in turn, overnight them to an eternal hell?

Here’s what I think needs to happen to a person found guilty of raping and/or killing a kid.

I think said person should …

1. Be executed immediately. Like, within a couple of days. Yep … wait maybe two days, max, after the conviction, and then swiftly turn them into a grease stain. And just to err on the side of mercy, because I’m a Christian, have whatever family and friends who’ll claim them come to pay their last respects, vomit on them or whatever.

After that, let them have their last supper of Vienna Sausages, pickled eggs and a nice cold cup of tobacco spit, then have the father of the victim they raped/killed come forward and throw the switch on a substantial pack of C4 and publicly explode these Darwinian holdovers to smithereens. With, of course, the entire nation watching and a live cable feed fed straight to every jail cell inhabited by a child molester.

more

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/printdg20050423.shtml

 

[mattskramer]

You would limit the time for deathrow inmates to 1 year - 365 days in which to possibly clear their names?!?

If they didn't clear their name the first time, there's not too much of a chance of them clearing it later.

Generally, violent criminals being convicted are the results of some pretty strong DNA evidence...

Each of the following people spent over 1 year in jail. Charges were later dismissed and they were released due to evidence being found that had nothing to do with DNA. There are many many many more examples.

David Keaton Florida Conviction 1971 - Dismissed 1973
He was released after the actual killer was identified and convicted.

Clarence Smith New Mexico Conviction 1974 - Dismissed 1976
Weapon was traced to a drifter who later admitted to the killing.

Earl Charles Georgia Conviction 1975 - Dismissed 1978
He was released when evidence was found substantiating his alibi.

Lawyer Johnson Massachusetts Conviction 1971 - Dismissed 1982
A silent eyewitness later identified the state's witness as the killer!

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

I support the death penalty too, but like you guys said, improvements now! No need to sit on your butt for 15 years suing everything that moves, just let the victims' family load a pistol and do it themselves. (Or if they are murderer-loving liberals, they should let me do it. :teeth: )

By the way, if I was prez, Death Row would be the first thing to go, right after those stupid laws against fireworks.

 

[Eightball]

I'm gonna go religious on this one folks.

Jesus hung there on the cross, and there's were two people hanging on crosses with Him. One said, " get us down, since your the Son of God, you can do it.". The other one rebuked the guy that just spoke by saying, "hey, we both deserve to be up here on these crosses being crucified, but this guy Jesus is an innocent man!".

Jesus's reply, said basically this to the one that spoke last, "before this day is over, you will be with me in paradise".

Now, there is not one piece of evidence in Jesus's recorded life where he fights to end the Roman death penalty, or the penalty of death instituted by any human/government agency. With all of His omnipotence, he could have easily removed both adjoining men who were crucified next to Him, but He didn't.

Many people, think that ending the death penalty is being compassionate, and this attribute must reflect God's thoughts. Well, the only means to understand God, is through His Son, if your a bible believer. His Son, said on one occassion when some of His followers complained about some taxes to be paid, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's." One of the most prolific writers in the New Testament, Paul, plainly told believers in one of His Epistles, to not.....I said not... disobey those that govern over you. He goes on to say that God has allowed governments and nations to be established, and with that we(believers) should be in submission to them, with respect. Now Paul didn't say to not challenge laws or dictates by the government that go against God's will or nature. Civil disobedience is still a practice allowed in this country, but does have it's repercussions to the one doing it.

Now, is the death penalty a form of murder, and thus meets the criteria of the commandment, "Thou Shall Not Murder"? I still have to go back to the repentant criminal on the cross that said, " we deserve this punishment, but He is innocent(Jesus)". Jesus did not correct this condemned man, but assured him of ever-lasting life, because of his faith in the Son of God.

Now you can argue for life sentences under the old economics angle, that all the legal "stays" and other formalities that happen before someone runs out of appeals, the monetary burden on the people is greater. Well, the law, exacts death as an finality. It is the ultimate threat to humans. Unless you are suicidal in your basic nature, you most likely want to live as your basic core doctrine. Physical death is the final frontier, for many, and man has instituted it as the ultimate threat to those governed to establish order, and keep order.

The finality of the death penalty in the U.S. has been fuzzied by all the legal "stays" that can extend out a death row inmate's life 10 to 20 years beyond his or her's original sentencing. In some ways that might be considered "cruel and unusual", as the waiting period for the penalty to be exacted is stretched or delayed time and again. If anything, the cruelty of the system might be placed in the laps of the "anti-death penalty" folks through their countless legal briefs, actually cause death row inmates to linger on and on, wondering when the next legal attempt to "stay" will fail. Is that humane?

I can't blame the government.........it's purpose is to exact the punishment.........and to make it expedient( That's humane!).

The opponents have actually harmed the expedience of the death penalty and have actually contributed to the "cruel and unusual" part of this punishment.

Would Jesus be found sitting with a group of anti-death folks on a 24 hour over-night vigil at San Quentin? I doubt it. Was He a good "gauge" of what we should be doing with our lives? I think so.

 

[mattskramer]

Look at:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109

Just read of the "Cases of Innocence". Some of the people mentioned on the web link spent over 5 years on death row before having their cases dismissed. It mentions over 100 cases since 1973!

We should end the death penalty.
(1.) Cut costs here and there.
(2.) Remove inmate privileges.
(3.) Put prisoners to work so that they can earn some of their keep.
(4.) Make "life in prison" mean "life in prison"
(No early release unless evidence proves that you were innocent).
(5.) Change laws so criminals of "victimless crimes" might be released, but-
We shouldn't risk executing one who may be innocent.

It is as simple as that.

EIGHTBALL -

If a death row inmate does not want to continue to "fight for his life" then I think that he, being of sound mind, should be free to commit suicide. Let it be his choice and not that of the government.

 

[Eightball]

"I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other mens rights." - Abraham Lincoln

And every death row resident in some way has violated Abraham Lincoln's tacit statement. They have indeed interfered with other men's rights, and in no way innocently, or mildly.

 

[Merlin1047]

There are some acts so heinous and some people so evil that killing them is the only effective and appropriate punishment. I fully support the concept that some crimes should be punishable by killing the perpetrator.

That said, I do not support the death penalty in its present form. Given the number of people who have been sentenced to death only to be released after being proven innocent, we have to extrapolate from that data, the fact the we have undoubtedly killed many people who did not commit the crime for which they were executed. That is absolutely unacceptable.

The death penalty should be put in abeyance until uniform and consistent laws and procedures are adopted by all fifty states. In order to impose the death penalty, the jury's verdict and the judge's sentence must be based on hard scientifice evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, videotape etc. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable in most cases.

Not only do laws need to be revamped, but sentencing guidelines need to be made consistent also. State's rights issues aside, it is not appropriate to impose a death penalty for a crime in Arkansas, while the same crime in Missouri gets 20 years to life. In addition, our courts are notorious for going easy on the rich. A millionaire with an entourage of shysters can buy a lot more "justice" that an indigent with a public defender. Sentencing guidelines would not put an end to that problem, but they would serve to reduce it.

Those who favor life in prison in lieu of the death penalty tend to overlook an unfortunate fact of life. Thanks to the ACLU, idiot judges and bleeding heart activist morons, our prison system has deteriorated from a place of punishment into a warehouse for evil people. Where can you find the best law libraries? Prison. Gymnasiums? Prison. Prisoner and their sycophants have made a mockery out of the concept that a prison sentence is imposed to PUNISH, not rehabilitate. Perhaps it will take a constitutional amendment, but I believe that as part of a prison sentence, you forfeit your rights as a citizen. The only rights a convict should have are basic human rights. Otherwise, they should be worked all day, every day till their damn tongues hang out like a red necktie. That's what I call rehabilitation. You make prison so terrible that they don't want to come back for another tour.

 

[Eightball]

There are some acts so heinous and some people so evil that killing them is the only effective and appropriate punishment. I fully support the concept that some crimes should be punishable by killing the perpetrator.

That said, I do not support the death penalty in its present form. Given the number of people who have been sentenced to death only to be released after being proven innocent, we have to extrapolate from that data, the fact the we have undoubtedly killed many people who did not commit the crime for which they were executed. That is absolutely unacceptable.

The death penalty should be put in abeyance until uniform and consistent laws and procedures are adopted by all fifty states. In order to impose the death penalty, the jury's verdict and the judge's sentence must be based on hard scientifice evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, videotape etc. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable in most cases.

Not only do laws need to be revamped, but sentencing guidelines need to be made consistent also. State's rights issues aside, it is not appropriate to impose a death penalty for a crime in Arkansas, while the same crime in Missouri gets 20 years to life. In addition, our courts are notorious for going easy on the rich. A millionaire with an entourage of shysters can buy a lot more "justice" that an indigent with a public defender. Sentencing guidelines would not put an end to that problem, but they would serve to reduce it.

Those who favor life in prison in lieu of the death penalty tend to overlook an unfortunate fact of life. Thanks to the ACLU, idiot judges and bleeding heart activist morons, our prison system has deteriorated from a place of punishment into a warehouse for evil people. Where can you find the best law libraries? Prison. Gymnasiums? Prison. Prisoner and their sycophants have made a mockery out of the concept that a prison sentence is imposed to PUNISH, not rehabilitate. Perhaps it will take a constitutional amendment, but I believe that as part of a prison sentence, you forfeit your rights as a citizen. The only rights a convict should have are basic human rights. Otherwise, they should be worked all day, every day till their damn tongues hang out like a red necktie. That's what I call rehabilitation. You make prison so terrible that they don't want to come back for another tour.

I'll Second That!