Until we can bring back the dead, I will not be for the death penalty.

You bet I'm for it. In my opinion, you'd have to be crazy NOT to be for it. I mean, you go out and kill somebody, or whatever, and then get proven guilty, and you get to live? What kind of justice is that? It costs more to house this killer per year than I make in two! Some justice, huh? And to total up $30,000/year for 30 years...that's $900,000. You give that guy 30 days to prove otherwise, and that's it. Get rid of the idiot, and you've saved $895,000. What have we got to lose there? Prisons would be smaller, it would be a deterrent, prison budgets would be smaller...hell yeah, I'm all for it.
I kill you for no real reason, I don't deserve another 30 seconds. You kill me for no reason, you've got 10 seconds before my wife blows your brains out.
Rapists get 2 weeks of Bubba in a jail cell, and it's off with him. Don't even tempt me to say more...you'll read a freakin' novel, I swear it.

You might want to think through your scenario a little more. Removing all prisoners off death row would only take ~5,000 from our prisoner pool of ~2 million (1 million physically behind bars). You _really_ believe that's going to alleviate our budget problems? Placing all murderers on house intensive house arrest would relieve the budget (reducing high appeals costs, prisoner can pay restitution and fines for his/her own supervision, etc.) _and_ the population with the _lowest_ recidivsm rate would be reintegrated back into society with the maximum supervision possible. Of course, I doubt our society is even ready to hear about a program like that. Yet, arguing for executing prisoners on death row to reduce the costs of imprisonment isn't going to aid the problem.

Not purely because of how expensive it is to put some of the scum to death.

I didn't say it would eliminate the problem, but it would help some. There are numerous other reasons I'm for it. Like I said, I'm not even going to get started on it, otherwise I'll be here for a really long time.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85971,00.html

Almost five years after Terry Nichols (search) was sentenced to life behind bars in a federal prison for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing, Oklahoma prosecutors are hoping to win a more severe punishment on state charges: his life.

Nichols was to appear before a judge Monday at a preliminary hearing that will determine whether there is enough evidence to send him to death row on 160 counts of first-degree murder.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/89629/0_21_nichols.jpg

Martha Ridley said she has waited eight years for Nichols to be prosecuted for the death of her daughter, Kathy Ridley, in the April 19, 1995, attack on the Oklahoma City federal building.

"These people deserve justice," Ridley said. "He wasn't given the death penalty and these people are just as dead today as they were April 19. And they will never come back."


This afternnoon in Oklahoma City a trial with capital implications will begin. The reasons why some of the people of Oklahoma City want this trial are stated above. They want closure and do not feel they've gotten it. Others directly involved oppose re-opening the whole can of worms for about the same reasons.

I'm in favor of a society having the right to execute individuals for the greater good.

Where the death penalty is on the books it should be implemented as called for by law and sentencing guidelines.

Do I think it should be the law in all states?

yes.

im a major supporter of the death penelty...but it has to be somewhat humane...i think the electric chair is wrong, lethal injection...sure

oh, and i believe that criminals with the death penalty should have mandatory organ donation...we always need a few extra hearts out there...

The Death Penalty
 

I myself oppose it on all aspects. I dont see anything that is good or rightful or just about it. It is simply just wrong.
It doesnt take away the pain the victims go through and it doesnt bring back the lost ones. If a mistake is made and soemone is falsly judged you cant go back and fix it. And in my opinion nobody has the right to decide who has the right to live and who doesnt have the right to live.

100% against it.

Moral reasoning: Taking a human's life when life imprisonment does just fine at protecting society is simply uncalled for and unnecessary. The death penalty serves no other purpose than revenge - continuing the vicious cycle of hate.

Logistical reasoning: It costs far less, after the necessary appeals process, etc etc, to keep someone in prison for life than to put them to death. Prison for these people is not "free cable TV and workout rooms." It is quite the opposite. They're removed as a danger to society just fine by giving them life in prison without parole, and it costs less of my tax money overall. Not to mention it errs on the side of caution when it comes to wrongly convicting someone.

There is no reason to continue this post unless all you are asking for is a flame war. This topic has already been beaten totally to death on this and the other boards. Those who are against it refuse to look at the other side and the other side totally disagrees with both of you. Why don't we just drop it.

I will say this. There was a time, not all that long ago, when I was a major proponent of the Death Penalty. Then I read an article in Time Magazine, and have since seen the same story on 20/20, about a Medical Examiner in Boston, I believe it was, that would skew the results of her examination of evidence toward the prosecution. Since this discovery, dozens of "guilty" defendants have been set free as they were cleared of their crimes by the "new" evidence. It was to late for several that were already given the ultimate punishment. After that, I changed my mind. I am now against the Death Penalty, and favor Life Imprisonment with no (read absolutely no) chance of parole.

hmm...I must have missed the earlier posts of this topic.
Im sorry, It might seem like asking for a flame war, but its not.. perhaps my approach was too eager. Oh well,.. the reason i put up this thread was because I havent heard a supporting view towards the topic that would convince me and at the sametime I know theres lots off people who do support the death penalty. I think its always interesting hearing people state the reasons for their opinions. ;)

The topic was addressed on TFP 3.0 IIRC. I don't think it's addressed on this version.

Either way, just so long as everyone is civil and knows this thread is being watched for flaming because its sensitive nature, all should be well.

Be erspectfully inquisitive and you should be fine, be rude in any way and you'll find yourself in trouble.

If they're guilty, fry 'em.

Sometimes I wish the death sentence was handed out a little more liberally.

If you live your life as you should, chances are, you'll never end up on the wrong side of the glass.

Yes.
It's a good topic.
In my opinion, the death penalty is a useful tool for prevention and protection and a worthwhile method of deterrence for those who have no empathy and will perhaps be deterred by the threat of mortal consequences. It also has its place in human affairs as a punitive procedure.

When there is proof beyond any doubt that someone commited a heinous crime simple to amuse themselves,I am 100% in support of the death penalty.

We dont have it here but we should. I am all for it. I dont think those who have killed by choice and there are plenty of them out there should be let live.
Now we can harp on and on about all those who were wrongly accused, Im not talking about them. I am talking about all those who have been proven without doubt through DNA or with the weapon in their hands.Bundy ,Manson and co. Are they sorry they killed, I very much doubt it.As for the costs to "remove" them from this planet a box of bullets isnt that costly and hell it only takes one good head shot.
Give the money it costs to keep them locked up to the orpnans of those whos parents have been murdered, or towards school funds for single parent families whos spouse has been murdered and who have to work their asses off to give their kids a good life.there are plenty of hungry kids out there who could do with the 3 meals (cos killers after all are humans and need 3 good square meals a day) provided each day to these wasters.
"But they have to spend the rest of their lives in a cell" like thats so much tougher than waking up every morning and having to cope with the loss of your partner, or looking at friends with their kids knowing that your child suffered a brutal death at the hands of a beast, and know that this killer is sitting in a cell growing old and fat.If all those of you want them to live on "moral" grounds lets get something productive from them , there are plenty of mine fields around the world that need clearing, or medical products that need testing.

Thousands die daily for far worse reasons. Accidents, murders, etc.

We propose to kill those that would kill others, sometimes in mulitples, to protect the innocent.

If you shoot a mad dog he bites no one else.

As for the supposedly innocent few that get caught in the system, see the thread about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

We need to see this on a civilization wide level, not just personal views. You pruge a disease whenever possible to save the body.

I agree with LD but I can't seem to stay out of these things.

Rockogre and I apparently either think alike or have a mutual admiriation thing goin'. There are times when it is totally acceptable. Our court system has its flaws and I am sure that some who were innocent have been victims of capital punishment. Thousands of lowlifes have escaped capital punishment only to go do it again and again and aga.........

Yes. If he/she is guilty, like BoCo says, "Fry 'em".

But if you want real deterrence, do it with dispatch.
None of this 20 years on death row, 3 squares and cable BS.

I am for it under the right condition. If you are a serial killer, then you deserve to die. If you have killed a child, you deserve to die. Now even though I am not a big fan of the cops, I do think that if you kill a cop, you deserve to die. Just my stand on the issue

I'd be fore it if everyone who "did the crime did the time" and we could restore dead people a-la _Sixth Day_ to cover mistakes. Heck I'd be all for expanding the punishment to the crimes of aggravated rape, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, kidnapping, treason, and bullying.

Unfortunately we haven't figured out how to raise the dead and these kind of penalties tend to fall on the poor and unknown. Can you even conceive of someone like gary conduit ever getting the death penalty as presently enforced.

100% for the death penalty, especially if the criminal killed a child. I would rather than kill him then have him live in a cell and the citizens pay to feed him.

I said it on the previous thread, but:

Studies have shown that states who restarted or began using capital punishment actually showed an INCREASE in violent crime and murder rates significantly greater than the increase in those same rates nationally.

There is really no difference between executing someone and keeping that person in jail for life with no chance of parole. Other than the fact that the costs less and allows us to right the wrong if we wrongly convicted that person. Once you kill an innocent person, there's no bringing them back.

By the way, here's an interesting little quiz on the death penalty:
http://www.patweb.com/dpquiz/main2.htm

Only in an "eye for an eye" situation. If you've killed, and we can prove it, then there's no reason in my mind not to kill you as quickly and humanely as possible.

And some peoples trials get botched, I know, but when I think of all the barrels they carted out of Dalmer's place, filled with human body parts, I see no reason why he lived as long as he did.

Same for Charlie Manson.

Same for Timmy McVey

By the same token, I think there needs to be some kind of prison reform. Some of the guys who are continually in and out of the system for small time shit are obviously not being taken care of the way things are now.

Thank you, there are some interesting views you have put up. Whats youre opinion about the message the death penalty sends? I fear it might send a messagw that 'killing is alright if you have a good reason'..when in my opinion the goal should be 'killing others isnt alright at all...'

What do you think?

Kill 'em all.

A persons life really isn't as important as we all thought.


Well, not to the people in charge at least.

I am against it.

Apart from the many reasons already cited here, I don't like the whole feeling of that the State thinks it has done its full duty, and that justice has been done. The justice system comes into play when society has failed. In many cases, I feel that its just a convenient way for the Government to say, "hey, we did our job".

I believe psychos such as the ones mentioned are one of the most important resources we have right now. They should be studied. We have to learn more about them. Killing them off isn't teaching anybody anything. We need to find them before they present a threat, not after they've become killers.

This is one topic where I really don't think I could win over any hearts and minds, so I'll just say I'm opposed to it.

Reasons:
- Innocent people will be executed.
- All human life is precious. Those who are in favour of the DP realise this and conclude that we should execute murderers. I realise this and think we should not.
- The DP a it stands is extremely racist.
- It costs $2m more, and that money could be spent to save lives.
- The penal system should be about rehabilition, and justice should not be about revenge. The DP goes against both of these principles.
- The DP is a frustrated sign of failure by society. It says that we can do nothing more for these people. We give in. We quit. I refuse to give up hope and believe that if good is to triumph over evil, then we must fight it on this, the most difficult of battle grounds.
- I am not a christian, but think that many of its principles are wonderful. I keep asking myself, "What would Jesus do?". I am sure that pulling the lever is not the answer.

Some have don't deserve to be alive, and they are a complete harm to society,
and I don't want to pay for their live-time incarceration.

First, only the MOST obvious cases should be death penalty.
(Too many prosecutors use it to gain notoriety, and a notch in their belt)
Second, let ALL the appeals processes go through completely.
(They can prove it otherwise by then, or there is ANY doubt)
Third, do it with lethal injection.
(This is not about inflicting pain; this is about get someone out of here not worthy of an investment)

Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy,
The men who drug that poor man to death behind their truck.
(These are people who do not deserve to be on Earth)

Not the man or woman who panicked during a robbery.
Not the wife who killed her kids while depressed
Not the person who PROBABLY murdered his associate.

But the most obvious, most heinous,
the ones who do not care about life, unlike normal people.
(This is NOT about revenge)
They do not deserve to be here,
and I do NOT want to pay for their continuing infamy & anti-celebrity

Only these should be applied to the death penalty.

I am against the death penalty for much of the same reasons that lebell set above.

I also agree that some prisoners are given too many rights and many are paroled far too early. Life in prison should be life in prison.

I would much rather have Timothy McVeigh rot for eternity, locked up and treated like an animal and beaten and scorned by his fellow prisoners. I think that would have been a much harsher punishment than the easy out he got.

I'm sorry, I just consider the death penalty a retroactive abortion...it is mearly societies way of saying we dont want to deal with your shit anymore. As long as one is leagal I have no problem with the other

Re: Death Penalty - Why or Why Not?
 

yes tehy do in a round about way, they cost money to keep and that money should be used to feed the hungry or shelter the shelterless, or maybe get SS afloat again.

I think it is now fair game to point out to some of those who have posted about the money issue that it is cheaper to imprison than execute. By about 2 million dollars.

Take maximusveritas's quiz (linked above) to learn about that and a whole lot more.

Just recap...

$ execute > $ imprison

I think death is too easy a way out. Convicted killers should be locked into a 4X4 room with bright lights, no entertainment, no communication with the outside world. Each meal should be the same thing over and over again. Make their existence a living death, their cell a concrete coffin.

I'd agree to that, but the pot smokin, granola eatin, sandle wearin, volvo drivin, hippies won't let us.

The death penalty is official state sanctioned cold blooded murder.

While not as heinous as the acts these guys commit, it is the same, we simply sterilize and say it's for the greater good.

Economically it's more expensive to kill than keep, a point a few others have already brought up.

If you're looking to relieve the prison system of it's financial burderns why not release the non-violent drug offenders? recent tallys show that nearly 250,000 prisoners are drug offenders with an average of 58% of them non-violent. Surely releasing and supervising this 58% will alleviate the financial burden on the prison system more than killing the 3600 currently on death row.

But what if they escape? Of the 1.1 million folks in prison in 1998 (the latest statistic I could find) only 1/2 of 1% were reported as escapes or AWOL. Most from minimum security prision and community correctional facilities. Hardly the mulitple murder types.

But cops and soldiers kill....That's true, but they only kill in defending their life or the lives of others. While this isn't always the case, most cops and soldiers don't discharge their weapons without good reason and if they do they face serious scrutinizing.

I have no qualms about killing in defense of my life or the lives of others; the killing of a prisoner, a prisoner who poses no threat to society because he's been incarcerated, with sterile precision is wrong.

Timothy McVeigh wouldn't have rented any more Ryder trucks; Not because he's dead, but because he was in prison.

Our Justice system is a way to assign blame and proper punishment for their crime. Incarcerate them for life; death is too good. The death penalty only absolves the state from the responsibility of applying the appropriate punishment.

It's been said before, but I'll say it again. This, this wishing for pain on the part of the criminal, is the cruel and unusual punishment. It is an Old Testament sentiment, and better suited for the Middle Ages than here and now.

As for the figures provided by maximus' quiz:
I would be interested to know what the average cost of living a year in prison is, rather than Texas as an example, and the average cost of execution. Further, I would like to know how much of that is spent on appeals and other court proceedings, and how much is actually spent throwing the switch. I go now to research.

All right. I got several different numbers for average cost, but the $20,000 figure seems the best. It is from a study done in 1997 by the Department of Corrections, I think. So we'll brook that, assume it hasn't gone up. Now, the cost of the actual execution materials in Texas, where they use lethal injection, is $86.08. Not much, but big surprise, no one actually thought the method was the expensive bit. So the cost clearly lies with the 12 years(on average, from a '99 article in Economist) that the prisoner resides on death row, and all the appeals and so forth that are filed during that span. 12 years? That is indeed cruel to make a person wait that long. I think the solution is obvious. I am not suggesting the death penalty in all cases, but there are certain times when I don't think we need to wait all that long. McVeigh. Confessed. Why did we wait so long? The law said we had to. Lawyers did their dance...anyway. The cost comes in the courtroom, not the electric chair.