Death Penalty Bad?
Here is a topic that until recently I didn't talk about. This is a short article but I think I bring up my points.
Do I agree with the death penalty? I agree in certain cercumstances. I think there should be certain crimes that can make you liable for the death penalty. Murder would be an example. It would not apply to crimes such as robbery. I would also agree if someone did a crime a certain amount of times somone could get the death penalty. I wouldn't want however minors to get the death penalty because, and I am not saying that it is thier fault, the parents would be legally responsible.
That is what I think the death penalty should be like.
posted by PlaidBaron @ 6:23 PM
29 comments
29 Comments:
I follow death penalty cases religiously, and I think it should be decided on a case by case basis and applied only for the most gratuitous of crimes. It's not something that should have blanket application or expemtion. The states and their courts should be the ones to decide. Sadly the Supreme Court doesn't always see it that way.
I think the majority of murders and extremely violent rapes should be punishable by death. Also, I believe we need stronger protections for homeowners who shoot and kill a criminal that is invading their home. Civilian application of the death penalty saves on court costs and lengthy trials.
It seems fairly hypocritical to murder someone for murdering someone. Also, I don't believe that the government should have the power to execute people based on crime, as death, if deserved, should come naturally. Although DNA testing is becoming more accurate, there are still faults, and the innocent that have been killed thus far are too numerous. We're researching this topic in debate right now, and I can't say that I have a permanent stance on the matter right now. Just a few things to think about, I suppose.
Okay, here's why I think the death penalty should be employed for really criminal and sociopathic behavior.
I watched Montel the other day. Wedensday, I think. The program was about a rapist who had raped and badly beaten several girls all 14 years of age or younger. He was sent to jail. This charge happened about 15 years ago. He was released from prison only to begin raping again. Only this time he killed someone. Also he beat a girl to the point where he thought he had killed her. Then, thinking she was dead, he proceeded to rape her. She lived and testified and now he's back in jail. I believe he deserves the death penalty. Why should we taxpayers have to pay to keep this piece of human garbage alive for the rest of his life? Then there is the fact that even known murderers have been released!
The only alternative I can see is for science to evolve to the point where they can change his way of thinking. But that will open an entirely new bag of worms!
Missel, that guy in the garage wasn't the only criminal in this scenario! So was the jury! Sheesh. Bet your glad you don't live in Florida anymore.
Many years ago while living in El Paso someone grabbed an ax and put it through my living room window. I called the police, naturally, who couldn't find the person, but told me "if you shoot him, drag him inside the house before you call us!" So if the law is the same as it was then, and I don't really know, the person must be in the house.
Here's my opinion. I think if you can prove that someone commited murder, they deserve death, but that's if it can be confirmed.
For rapists I'd give them two choices. Life in jail, or cut off their sex organs and let them free with a tracking device on their leg for the rest of their life. I think that would reduce that problem pretty quickly.
By the way PlaidBaron, I like the idea of bringing up a topic that can be discussed in the comments section. It's a nice break from reading a long article and just discussing that article.
Since this blog is to discuss how we want to make America better, discussing things like this is a very good way to make those decisions and still keep our (kind of) non-partisan reputation.
Wow...I didn't realize I would get this many comments. Thanks everyone.
I think that a lifetime of solitary confinement is a decent punishment. There are definitely flaws in the system that are allowing violent rapists out of prison after only 15 years, and I agree that that is completely wrong. However, it seems much more moral to me to sentence them for life, rather than killing them. It also bothers me that you always think of your tax dollars, Gayle. Would you rather have a sliver of your taxes go to protecting the society, or pay nothing and have rapists out of prison? Seems like a decent thing to get from such a slight sacrifice.
You're getting political James.
What's the point in killing a murderer? It's pretty illogical if you ask me.
If you're a Christian like I am, you believe that if the murderer repents and asks God for forgiveness, he's got a good chance of getting to heaven when he dies. So in short, he gets to die early and go hang with Jesus!
Besides, wouldn't it be more of a punishment to spend the rest of your life in a cell?
I agree it would be more of a punishment to spend the rest of your life in a cell. However, many times, as I pointed out, they don't spend the rest of their lives in a cell. They get out, and sometimes become worse than before they went in.
*idea*
I think if you are a murderer you should get death. But when they kill you they can use your organs to help sick diseased people who deserve them more than the living turd that kills people.
The death penalty could actually save more lives than it ends. It's a very interesting thought.
I do think a lifetime in jail would be a worse punishment, but my idea could actually save many lives and only take a few. And it's not like anyone cares if a murderer dies.
Why should we taxpayers have to pay to keep this piece of human garbage alive for the rest of his life?
Costs
Capital punishment is a far more expensive system than one whose maximum penalty is life in prison.
A New York study estimated the cost of an execution at three times that of life imprisonment.
In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment.
Studies in California, Kansas, Maryland, and North Carolina all have concluded that capital punishment is far more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.
The greatest costs of the death penalty are incurred prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings were abolished, the death penalty system would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.
Under a death penalty system, trials have two separate phases (conviction and sentencing); they are typically preceded by special motions and extra jury selection questioning.
More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, the taxpayer first incurs all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).
The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means:
Taking it away from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child abuse.
Reducing the resources states put into crime prevention, education and rehabilitation, investigative resources, and drug treatment programs.
"Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis".
--Joint Legislative Budget, Committee of the California Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999
forgot the link:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/event2/costs.html
Gayle: you've never heard or read about this before?
dfkz
I don't know where you live, but where I live, bullets are cheap. I can pick up 5 12 guage slugs for a couple of bucks. That's five criminals for under $10.00. Not bad in my book.
As far as executing criminals being hypocritical goes, that's malarcky. See, you're not murdering them, you're removing them from the gene pool. You're eliminating any chance that this person is ever going to commit another crime again. Also, you're allowing the family of the victim a little vicarious vengeance. "But in the bible it says, 'vengeance is mine, thus sayeth the Lord'". And?
We ought not concern ourselves with such trivial matters as that. These people are filth, human debris that need to be disposed of. As long as there are judges willing to give soft sentences for violent crime, we are going to have the possibility of releasing dangerous criminals. A life behind bars is no guarantee of anything anymore.
*BANG* It's over. It's not inhumane, it's very quick and painless when done correctly.
The article I posted described how things are done in the United States. Those are the FACTS, whether or not you agree with them. Perhaps you think we should follow China's example?
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/la-fg-chinadeath28sep28,0,7703742.story?page=2&coll=sfla-newsnation-front
Concerns Grow Over Executions in China
Thousands are put to death every year, often after brief trials that are closed to the public.
September 28 2005. By Mark Magnier, Times Staff Writer
Hulou, China -- Zhang Huanzhi, 61, hugs a small mound of dirt that holds her son's ashes. Tears and mucous stream from her face as she cries out in pain: Why us, why our boy, why such injustice?
A few months ago, a state-run newspaper reported that someone else had confessed to the rape and murder for which her son had been executed. For years, few had listened as she insisted that Nie Shubin, 20, had been tortured into a false confession, then convicted after a two-hour trial. The only evidence of any note, she says, was the account of a witness who saw someone near the crime scene riding a blue bicycle. Nie owned a blue bicycle.
"If his bicycle were red, or black, he'd be alive today", Zhang said.
Cases such as Nie's have cast a harsh spotlight on China's widespread, and often questionable, use of the death penalty. Now, amid pressure from lawyers, academics, the United Nations and many countries, the government is undertaking a reevaluation.
On Tuesday, government media reported that the Supreme People's Court would regain the authority it lost in 1983 to oversee capital cases. The change in the early 1980s was driven by a desire for speedy justice. According to the China Youth Daily, the nation's highest court is adding three criminal trial courts to handle death penalty review cases in a "truly neutral" fashion.
Legal scholars estimate that this change could reduce executions by 30%. The current system has seen provincial judges order up the death penalty at a fast and furious pace.
Comprehensive death penalty statistics remain a state secret, although local jurisdictions will announce executions when that serves a political purpose. Human rights groups, however, say China executes more people than the rest of the world's governments combined.
Amnesty International found evidence of 3,400 death sentences carried out in 2004 but says the real number may be closer to 10,000 a year. This compares with 59 in the U.S. in 2004. More than 70 countries use the death penalty, but most apply it only in the case of a few extremely violent crimes. China executes people for 68 offenses, many nonviolent, including smuggling, tax evasion, corruption, "endangering national security" and separatism, which includes advocating Tibetan or Taiwanese independence.
Nie's two-hour trial, followed a few months later by his execution, was not unusual. Reports suggest some capital trials last less than an hour. Lu Shile, accused of murder in the northeastern city of Qingdao, was convicted late last year, had his appeal denied and was executed within 24 days, an outcome the Qingdao Evening News praised as "rapid and highly efficient".
The system is heavily stacked against defendants.
Connections, not legal expertise, often determine who becomes a judge, and corruption is a constant concern. In addition, appeals are rarely successful because they are heard by the same court that issued the original sentence.
On paper, suspects are innocent until proven guilty. In practice, legal scholars say, the government is generally assumed to be correct. Chinese law lacks manslaughter or first, second and third-degree gradations for murder, so the death penalty often is the only option.
The system also places emphasis on confessions, with torture a constant threat, human rights groups say.
China's 1979 criminal statutes, which stipulated that executions be carried out with a bullet to the head, were amended in 1996 to include lethal injection. In the late 1990s, China pioneered the use of mobile lethal-injection vans. Reports suggest their use is particularly common during anti-drug campaigns in the southern province of Yunnan.
Reports persist of public executions, although much less frequently than in the past. Last year, students as young as 6 joined 2,500 spectators in a gymnasium in Changsha, the capital of Hunan province in central China, to watch the execution of six men, according to a Chinese Internet report.
China spends $87 per execution, including transportation, cremation, bullets and death notices, according to a 2003 report on the government-run Xinhuanet website. The condemned have ranged in age from 18 to 87.
The treatment of people's bodies after their execution is also an issue. Human rights groups have long accused China of using organs without consent from the families of those executed.
In 2000, the mother of convicted murderer Yu Yonggang sued the government in Shanxi province, claiming the court and local medical authorities stole her son's organs after his execution. Another case in Gansu province that year resulted in the award of $250 to a family for a similar theft, according to the Lanzhou Morning Post.
Nie's family was not allowed to visit him in prison or talk to him after his arrest. Nie reportedly told his lawyer that he was interrogated and beaten by police for six days. His mother says when she caught a glimpse of him being dragged into the courthouse, one arm was twisted at an unnatural angle. Local, municipal and provincial police said they didn't recall the case.
The family learned of his execution in early 1995 only after a prison guard told them to stop wasting their time bringing soap and toothbrushes because their son was dead already. A newspaper account at the time said: "After a weeklong investigation in which the police applied smart, psychological techniques, officers finally got the accused to admit the crime".
"How can you call these 'smart techniques'?" his mother, Zhang, asks.
The incident tore the family apart. Zhang's husband attempted suicide with sleeping pills and, after recovering, suffered a mental breakdown.
Word of their son's presumed innocence came early this year when a migrant worker, Wang Shujin, confessed to raping six women, four of whom he said he killed, including Kang, according to the state-run Henan Business News. Wang's case is still working its way through the courts, although legal experts say it's almost certain he will receive the death penalty.
Nie's family, meanwhile, is caught in legal limbo. The court says an execution certificate is required to reopen the case, but the family says it never received one, nor was it required at the time.
"I feel so powerless", Zhang says. "I had a beautiful, happy family, a good husband, everything seemed so perfect. Then our whole world came apart".
Nightcrawler said... As far as executing criminals being hypocritical goes, that's malarcky.
I only posted an article which stated the FACT that it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. I did not give my personal opinion regarding the death penalty -- I have no idea where you're getting "hypocritical" from.
I don't think it should be abolished completely, but it's use should be severely restricted. If for no other reason other than the fact that it is just too expensive. BTW I fully support the death penalty being applied after George W. Bush is tried and convicted for war crimes.
If the injection costs too much, then we can switch to bullets. That right there solves the money problem for putting them out. But then you have to worry about expensive trials, I wouldn't change that because when you've got someones life on the line you've got to be sure you have the right guy.
And I still thing the organ doner plan is genius. There are sick people around the country just sitting in a hospitol waiting for someone to get in a car crash so they can use that persons organs. With the death penalty organ doner, those patients have a better chance of living. The death penalty can save lives.
I stand by this too, because there are plenty of poor people who deserve to live unlike the psycopaths in prison.
This is AMERICA -- taking people's organs without their family's consent is not LEGAL, even if the person is an executed criminal.
If the injection costs too much, then we can switch to bullets.
The cost of the injection is NOT what is adding significantly to the cost!
From my previous post:
More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, the taxpayer first incurs all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).
With the death penalty organ doner, those patients have a better chance of living.
From the United Network for Organ Sharing Website:
http://www.unos.org/resources/bioethics.asp?index=6
The proposals that concern organ recovery from executed prisoners unveil another host of problems. One method of execution suggested is the act of organ donation itself. From a utilitarian standpoint this would make sense; the anesthetizing of the condemned and the recovery of organs in the usual manner would produce optimum organs for transplantation. However, the cross-clamping the aorta and the ensuing cardiectomy, followed by the disconnection of the ventilator, create an unacceptable situation for the organ recovery team. It clearly places the organ recovery team in the role of executioner. Many physician groups, including the American Medical Association, have prohibited physician participation in state executions on ethical grounds.
Issues of informed consent of potential donors as well as recipients need to be addressed. Obviously a person condemned to death cannot consider organ or bone marrow donation as a coercion-free option. Even a death row inmate should have the option of refusing an invasive surgical procedure -- although unlikely, given the alternative. Correspondingly a person to be executed, or their next of kin/surrogate, should be able to make an informed decision regarding any donation options, including informed refusal if they so chose. Ultimately the potential organ/bone marrow recipient(s) should be informed that the source of the donation was a condemned prisoner, while maintaining the prisoner's confidentiality. Individuals in opposition to the death penalty might object to accepting an organ from either an executed prisoner or a prisoner.
Consider the effect that such a policy/law could have on organ donation overall. The number of potential organs recovered from condemned prisoners would be small. The conceivable stigma that would be attached to organ donation from its coupling with execution could lead to decreases in donation rates. This may especially be true within certain minority groups. Any notion that particular groups of people were receiving increased numbers of death sentences to provide organs for the rest of society would clearly make it difficult to attempt to obtain consent for altruistic donation from these groups.
Conclusion
The UNOS Ethics Committee has raised a small number of the many issues regarding organ donation from condemned prisoners. The Committee opposes any strategy or proposed statute regarding organ donation from condemned prisoners until all of the potential ethical concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
The problem with shooting them is that you have the ACLU protesting for murders and supporting abortion. What is it with that anyway? Liberals don't like killing murderers but its okay to do abortion? Anyway, the ACLU would claim that it would be "cruel to mutilate the person," or something.
To answer DFKZ's question: No, I had not heard about that before, and I find it interesting and informative. So in all fairness I must drop the "it costs the taxpayers too much money to keep them alive for life" arguement, but I cannot drop the arguement that it costs us a lot more when they don't keep them in for life and release them only to commit acts as bad or worse than for what they were sent up for in the first place.
Society should not have to abide rapists, serial killers and such running around loose in our communities. Murder is the ultimate sin and must not be tolerated. Murder is killing another human being either for profit, revenge or just pure pleasure. The death penalty is invoked against people who have chosen evil over good. It is "majority rule" and the majority of the people in this world are not misfit sociopaths who have no respect for human life. We cannot abide them living amongst us.
Life in prison would be okay if they would actually keep them there. A good percentage of the time, they don't!
Yet they are now giving people long sentences for marijuana use. Don't misunderstand: I don't use marijuana, but fair is fair and to put people in jail for years for marijuana use is just pure bs! I can't remember where I read this, or even what state, but I'll try to find it. They sentenced someone to 25 years for marijuana use because it was a third offence. Maybe some of the commentators here have read about it.
Yet they are now giving people long sentences for marijuana use. Don't misunderstand: I don't use marijuana, but fair is fair and to put people in jail for years for marijuana use is just pure bs!
I agree (!)
Below are some interesting comments I found on the "TalkLeft" message board:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008850.html
Poster 1:
Folks, you just have to understand Variable and Goat Rope (previous posters to the thread I took this from). They're part of the new Big Government GOP. There's a time when they would have wanted smaller government and more freedom, but now, instead of fining a pot smoker and telling him to get back to work, they'd rather use taxpayers' money to keep drug offenders in prison at a cost of $24,000 a year.
I don't understand it myself. It's like some kind of gigantic welfare system. Or maybe they just like seeing the government spend lots of money.
Maybe they're really anarchists and want to see the state of Wisconsin go broke and have to release all the criminals (including the violent ones).
Clearly, they're no longer part of the respected conservative America that believed is fiscal responsibility. It's a shame, because there was a time when the right didn't base everything in fear, when they believed in common sense government, limited government, and individual liberties. It may be that people will have to turn to the left for that kind of thinking.
Poster 2:
The facts are simple: discretionary non-defense spending has gone up every year of the Bush presidency. Revenues have stayed pretty flat through the Bush presidency. The deficit has exploded, and the national debt is increasing even more quickly now.
If you're in favor of a smaller less intrusive, less costly government, you have no party you can vote for. The Republican party is the party of spend spend spend, damn the costs, damn the deficit and the debt, pass the costs on to our kids.
The Democratic party is the party of fiscal sanity - if they're going to fund something, they're at least going to pay for it with tax revenues, and not just drive up the national debt.
To suggest otherwise is a blind turning away from reality.
This is AMERICA -- taking people's organs without their family's consent is not LEGAL, even if the person is an executed criminal.
It shouldn't be to hard to get the families consent. Saying no isn't going to keep them alive so why not let them do something that can be used to help people?
I think you're all missing the point. If you believe in Christianity (keep in mind, I'm Jewish, so if I make any mistakes please correct me), as most of you claim to, then every baby is innocent at birth (because Jesus died for everyone's sins). People aren't born sociopaths (and this eliminates the outright stupid idea that capital punishment removes scum from the gene pool). Either their brain chemistry is imbalanced (which can be corrected by drugs) or their families brought them up improperly. If we stop people from turning into sociopaths, we don't have to worry about killing them off when they embark on a life of crime. This saves their lives and those of anyone they would have killed.
Ensuring a good childhood is a hard thing to do-the biggest problem is families not having enough money to feed and clothe themselves. Because of this the parents need to work multiple jobs, which prevents them from being with their kids, and giving them the important moral lessons that stop them from thinking killing is ok. This means the government must support poor people more and, dare I say it, keep abortion and birth control legal so that mothers who cannot support their children are not forced to have them.
Liberals are frequently accused of being too lenient to criminals, and much too helpful to the poor. "If they need money, let them work for it!" is something I hear a lot. What we're really doing is looking ahead and addressing the disease instead of just the symptoms. It's a cycle, you see? A poor household raises a poor child, who can't go to college and get a good education, which means he's poor as an adult and can't support a family, etc. etc.
It shouldn't be to hard to get the families consent.
Really? Perhaps they're angry that their loved one was just taken away from them? Even if they acknowledged the person was guilty, most families would still be upset that their family member was killed -- and not be to eager to go along with organ donation. Some might be. I'm not against it if consent is given.
True Sol, people are BORN equal but don't GROW UP equal. I.E. I am better than Saddam Hussien.
dk said... Really? Perhaps they're angry that their loved one was just taken away from them?
And the murder victims families wern't?
Your right Sol Kauffman, I believe people are not born evil, they just grow up evil. Thanks for the comment.
Just to clearify something: When I said they grow up evil I mean some people grow up evil. I thought I should clearify that.
And the murder victims families wern't?
Are you disagreeing with me simply for the sake of disagreeing with me?
My only point was that the family (of the condemned prisoner) might say no to organ donation for that reason. Unless you think that the victim's family should be asked what they think should happened with the executed prisoner's organs (which isn't going to happen), I don't know what your point is.
Post a Comment
<< Home