Do you oppose the death penalty? If so, why?

[B5B7]

I am opposed on both moral and practical grounds.
Another concern of mine is that many guilty people are not caught.
Also, some people do not commit murders, but do things that are worse eg lead to many deaths eg irresponsible journalists, corrupt politicians, etc., and they are beyond the reach of justice.
Another concern is that if the police decide a particular person is guilty then they put no effort into further investigation.

[Surlethe]

I support the death penalty on moral grounds, but oppose it on practical grounds: in an ideal world, the justice system would work perfectly, we'd catch all the bad guys, and we could give back to them what they've done to other people. In the real world, we don't catch many of the bad guys, we also net some of the good guys and convict them of being bad guys, and, to be frank, I would prefer an actual criminal rot for life in solitary in a prison (effectively removing the rest of his life anyway) than an innocent man be executed.

[Dargos]

I support the death penalty for some crimes (rape, child molestation , torture/homicide) only if 100% proof is available. It is a sad fact that there are some members of our spieces who do not deserve life. The way we execute should as painless as possible, though in my opinion, there are some out there that do not deserve even that small mercy. (Example, mother and father who hung their 6 year old child upside down with a helmet on its head to muffle the screams, beat the child (causeing multiple fractures and ruptured organs) and a allowed the child to drown in its own vomit and blood).

[Crown]

I oppose the death penalty both on moral and practical grounds.

Crimes (and murders fall into three categories);

• Crimes of Compulsion.
• Crimes of Passion.
• Crimes of Greed.

Crimes of Compulsion
This should be self evident, but if sociopaths are compelled to kill, then there is no deterrent that's going to stop them to act on their compulsions.

Crimes of Passion
The loss of control, when one loses control due to rage, one does not stop to think 'hey gee, there's a pretty bad consequence waiting for me if I go to far', generally it once again happens too darn fast for a logical 'deterrent' to apply.

Crimes of Greed
Are usually pre-meditated well thought out murders for a specific type of gain, in this scenario the underlining philosophy is simply 'well I won't get caught' (self delusional reinforcement), which once again no amount of deterrent is applicable.

The underlining point of the above is that arguing that the death penalty acts as a deterrent is simply false. It's just an institutionalised form of vengeance, and does not have anything to do with justice.

Now I also believe that the state should simply not have the right to kill one of its citizens, I find it morally repugnant. Also one cannot bring back to life a wrongly executed person.

Now, having said that, I am of course a human being and if someone were to murder a loved one of mine, then I would want them ripped to shreds and fed to the dogs.


P.S. Penn and Teller did an excellent episode on this on 'Bullshit', wish I could find the link.

[Hillary]

Oppose it for many of the reasons given.

1) Risk of killing innocent people

2) Hypocracy of the state killing people when it has decreed this to be an unnacceptable act.

3) The difficulty in assessing the line between a capital and non-capital crime. This will be left up to the judge or a group of judges or a jury, in other words human judgement. We're not so good at that.

Add in the complete lack of deterrent that it has and I can't see how it is desirable in any way.

[Ariphaos]

I would support it but for the fact that the justice system is in such a bad way, so my support is effectively suspended on practical grounds pending satisfactory reform.

I'm more or less along these lines.

Charles "If I ever get out you'll all be dead" Manson does not particularly strike me as someone who is going to contribute to society. I don't support the death penalty as a deterrent, I support it as a means to get rid of people who simply have no desire to function in society.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I oppose the death penalty on many levels...

Firstly and for me, especially, i oppose it on moral grounds. No one deserves to die, i dont really care what they did. If YOU have the right to kill them, please explain why THEY cant kill you? Part of--perhaps the most important part--what keeps our society together is the idea that no one is allowed to murder anyone else. State sanctioned murder is no better. This is the same reason i also strongly oppose violence on other levels--war for example--and why i'm a pacifist, but i'll get back to that in a second. On another moral point, the very idea of the inetnse hypocrisy of it all repulses me.

On practical grounds there are numerous reasons to oppose the death penalty but i can condense them down into these three factors. One, as Crown pointed out, most murders are committed by people who will NOT be deterred by the death penalty's existance and so to kill people for no gain at all is asinine and calling it deterrent is purely false. Secondly numerous people have been cleared of crimes they were convicted of previously and yet we keep in place this system where one or more of them can be murdered by the state with no recourse if it turns out we got the wrong man. I cant even imagine how many innocents probably have been killed because of this retarded system. Thirdly, there is no gain and no logic or reason to it. Criminals are sufficiently 'stopped' by being in prison where a wall several feet thick of steel and concrete keeps them in, killing them serves no purpose whatsoever...except to feed the bloodlust of a few vengence-driven folks out there. If my family was killed or something would i want vengence, yeah sure, but who gives a fuck what i, or anyone, wants? Where do I, or anyone get off, demanding a life for a life?

More so we dont extend this to anyone who commits murder just those we deem to be criminals weather the evidence for it is strong enough or not. There are people who are soldiers, cops, politicians who have committed terrifying atrocities and killed many many more people than most of the accused on death row and yet they sleep like a baby every night with nary a hint of any kind of retribution coming their way. If Bush, for example, gets way wit nearly 700,000 dead and doesnt get even a fine let alone the death penalty and some guy who kills a dude in a fit of rage does i cant in good counscience support such an unequal policy, even if i could or would support the death penalty.

Thirdly i oppose the death penalty on religious grounds. I wont go into a long spiel about it so i dont bore everyone but, the words "Thou Shall Not Kill" werent followed by "Unless You Can Prove They Did Something Wrong, Then You Can Have The State Kill Them For You" in parenthesis. I know that's not the strongest reasoning but it's part of my reasoning, so i felt it would be dishonest not to mention that it does factor in to my opinion.

[mr friendly guy]

I support it on moral grounds for certain crimes namely rape, murder, paedophilia, war crimes, and I am not unsympathetic to it being applied to drug dealers, although I am not as certain in regards to it compared to the other four.

On practical grounds, I wouldn't support it unless I was could be convinced that we a very high standard of evidence without any racial, sexist, class or other irrelevant bias- namely for people like the aforementioned Martin Bryant and Ivan Milat.

[The Spartan]

I chose option 2 but could have just as easily picked option 3. I have nothing against it in principle, as some people, IMHO, have negated the value of their life, Timothy McVeigh comes to mind.

But, in general, I'm opposed to its implementation. Their are far too many executions that occur with far too shaky evidence. Especially here in the express lane at Huntsville.

[Knife]

I suppose I'd fall into the support on moral/ oppose on practical. If they overhauled the system with sufficient checks and balances, I have no problem putting down societies rabid dogs.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I oppose the death penalty of practical grounds. Some reasons :

1 : I don't trust the government with the authority to kill me.

2 : The innocent can be convicted.

3 : Our justice system is not just at all; race and wealth and gender have far too much with whether and how much you are punished, including the death penalty.

4 : Even our half assed attempt to avoid killing the innocent is more expensive than life imprisonment.

5 : If you kill someone innocent, you can't even try to make up for it, or undo the damage.

[Ted C]

I am not inherently against the death penalty, but I do have a serious problem with it being carelessly applied, resulting in the execution of people who are innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced.

I couldn't condone applying it to someone convicted of a single capital offense; the legal system doesn't give me that much assurance that they got the right person. I'm also not enthused with the idea of applying it to someone convicted primarily by witness testimony.

On the other hand, if someone is convicted of multiple violent offenses primarily by solid evidence, then I have no problem removing that person from the population permanently.

[Uraniun235]

If YOU have the right to kill them, please explain why THEY cant kill you? Part of--perhaps the most important part--what keeps our society together is the idea that no one is allowed to murder anyone else. State sanctioned murder is no better.

I'm pretty sure the underlying concept of the death penalty is the notion that certain actions on the part of an individual may forfeit their right to life, or otherwise make their lives worth less than others. I for one have difficulty grasping why, say, a serial rapist deserves the same consideration for their life that most people do. Why must all human life be equally sacred?

Further, I see little moral difference between life imprisonment and execution; the end result is effectively the same (permanent separation from society) and I for one have heard very little about any meaningful contributions to science, culture, or society from people sentenced to life imprisonment. (Although I suppose this in turn explains the Germans and their wacky law saying a "life sentence" is itself a violation of human dignity and therefore unacceptable... does anyone here care to defend that one?)

Finally, I'm pretty sure that in fact our society does allow people to kill other people, as seen by "state sanctioned murder", as well as by the legal concept of "killing in self-defense" and the current board controversy of "home defense". And in the past, society seemed to do okay when dueling was acceptable (or at least tolerated).

[General Zod]

I'd only be in favor if there were a completely rock solid case against the criminal in question. (IE - clear substantial evidence). Beyond that, I think permanent incarceration is better than risking accidentally killing someone who isn't guilty.

[Teleros]

Support it on practical and moral grounds, although I agree that it needs to be very carefully applied, given how permanent it is. But if you actually did <insert evil act here>, then good riddance to you.

[Teebs]

I oppose it on both moral and practical grounds. Practically speaking, there's no evidence that it acts as a deterrent and IIRC when you have as many appeals e.t.c. as the US system allows for it then the costs meet or exceed those of a life sentence. Then there's the possibility of executing an innocent person, however rock tight you think you've made your rules. A life sentence can remove people from society permanently but still allows the state to free and compensate them should they turn out to be innocent.

On moral grounds, I have two main reasons for opposing it. Firstly, I don't think that the state should have the right to kill someone (unless they are an imminent danger to others). That's simply a question of the moral limits of state power for me. I also oppose it morally because I think that those that commit the sorts of crimes that would get the death penalty either have some sort of mitigating circumstance in which case they don't deserve to die for their crime or are mentally ill (I don't think it's possible to commit such a crime without mitigating circumstances unless you have something wrong in your head) and if someone is commiting crimes because they're mentally ill then they should be removed from society so that they are not dangerous to anyone, but should not, in my opinion, be killed.

[Lord Pounder]

I support it but only for certain situations. We've all seen the threads on rape and abuse of kids. They make me physically sick. There is no cure for these people so there is no option but to remove them from the gene pool. Serial killers are also up there.

[Feil]

I'd only be in favor if there were a completely rock solid case against the criminal in question. (IE - clear substantial evidence). Beyond that, I think permanent incarceration is better than risking accidentally killing someone who isn't guilty.

Assuming no innocent person is ever convicted, but that only twenty out of every one hundred people convicted of the same crime receive the death penalty (and that of these twenty people, an extremely disproportionately high percentage are male and black), would you still support the death penalty for the 20 people sentenced thereto?

[Teleros]

Assuming no innocent person is ever convicted, but that only twenty out of every one hundred people convicted of the same crime receive the death penalty (and that of these twenty people, an extremely disproportionately high percentage are male and black), would you still support the death penalty for the 20 people sentenced thereto?

Yes, and I'd campaign for the other 80 to be bumped off too. That some of them for whatever reason aren't being bumped off doesn't mean none of them should be. I don't care if you're black, white, asian, martian or whatever, if you murder / rape someone etc, you should end up with a noose around your neck.

[General Zod]

I'd only be in favor if there were a completely rock solid case against the criminal in question. (IE - clear substantial evidence). Beyond that, I think permanent incarceration is better than risking accidentally killing someone who isn't guilty.

Assuming no innocent person is ever convicted, but that only twenty out of every one hundred people convicted of the same crime receive the death penalty (and that of these twenty people, an extremely disproportionately high percentage are male and black), would you still support the death penalty for the 20 people sentenced thereto?

Hence "completely rock solid". I also don't see why someone's race should affect the punishment they receive for a capitol offense. So yes, they should receive the same as everyone else regardless.

[Lord Zentei]

I'd only be in favor if there were a completely rock solid case against the criminal in question. (IE - clear substantial evidence). Beyond that, I think permanent incarceration is better than risking accidentally killing someone who isn't guilty.

The problem is, if you place a sufficiently high burden of evidence on death penalty cases to prevent that from occouring (as is only appropriate), you'll reduce not only false posetives, but true posetives as well: i.e. fewer innocent people get convicted, but fewer guilty people get convicted also (since there will always be guilty suspects whose cases are borderline with the lower burden of evidence associated with life in prison).

Result: if people allow the death penalty (and inevitably increase the burden of evidence) more criminals will slip through the justice system. Failing that (if the burden of evidence is not increased) innocent people will get executed.

Hence I oppose the whole idea.

PS: there is also the issue of a "perfect" test being unattainable: you will get false posetives to some degree.

[Frank Hipper]

I heard this somwhere and agree whit it.

If you support the death penalty for murder, and one innocent is executed.

Then YOU are guilty of murder, and buy logical extension should be executed.

I cannot agree whit the thought that a goverment has the right to kill.

If you agree with government posessing a military armed with lethal weapons, then you support a government posessing the right to kill.

[Arrow]

I support it on moral and practical grounds, as well. Morally, some people are simply too dangerous to allow back into society and need to be removed. Practically, the tax payer should not have pay to keep such an individual alive (no more life without parole sentences).

That said, the standard of evidence needs to be much higher for the death penalty, and it should only be handed out by a judge or panel of judges; a jury of peers simply isn't trained enough in matters of law to hand out such punishment.

[Lord Zentei]

I support it on moral and practical grounds, as well. Morally, some people are simply too dangerous to allow back into society and need to be removed. Practically, the tax payer should not have pay to keep such an individual alive (no more life without parole sentences).

That said, the standard of evidence needs to be much higher for the death penalty, and it should only be handed out by a judge or panel of judges; a jury of peers simply isn't trained enough in matters of law to hand out such punishment.

Well, here's another problem: death penalty cases are more expensive than regular ones. This is precisely because they need to be scrutinized more thoroughly:

Linka.

Report to Washington State Bar Association regarding costs

* At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 inadditional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.

* On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases.

* Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional$137,000 in public defense costs.

...and...

Death Penalty has Cost New Jersey Taxpayers $253 Million

A New Jersey Policy Perspectives report concluded that the state's death penalty has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983, a figure that is over and above the costs that would have been incurred had the state utilized a sentence of life without parole instead of death. The study examined the costs of death penalty cases to prosecutor offices, public defender offices, courts, and correctional facilities. The report's authors said that the cost estimate is "very conservative" because other significant costs uniquely associated with the death penalty were not available. "From a strictly financial perspective, it is hard to reach a conclusion other than this: New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one," the report concluded. Since 1982, there have been 197 capital trials in New Jersey and 60 death sentences, of which 50 were reversed. There have been no executions, and 10 men are housed on the state's death row. Michael Murphy, former Morris County prosecutor, remarked: "If you were to ask me how $11 million a year could best protect the people of New Jersey, I would tell you by giving the law enforcement community more resources. I'm not interested in hypotheticals or abstractions, I want the tools for law enforcement to do their job, and $11 million can buy a lot of tools." (See Newsday, Nov. 21, 2005; also Press Release, New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, Nov. 21, 2005). Read the Executive Summary. Read the full report. Read the NJADP Press Release.

Moreover, there are indications that the death penalty isn't really very effective:

Study Finds Death penalty Costly, Ineffective

A new report released by the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury recommended changes to the stateÕs costly death penalty and called into question its effectiveness in preventing crime. The Office of Research noted that it lacked sufficient data to accurately account for the total cost of capital trials, stating that because cost and time records were not maintained, the Office of Research was unable to determine the total, comprehensive cost of the death penalty in Tennessee." Although noting that, "no reliable data exists concerning the cost of prosecution or defense of first-degree murder cases in Tennessee," the report concluded that capital murder trials are longer and more expensive at every step compared to other murder trials. In fact, the available data indicated that in capital trials, taxpayers pay half again as much as murder cases in which prosecutors seek prison terms rather than the death penalty. Findings in the report include the following:

* Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
* Tennessee District Attorneys General are not consistent in their pursuit of the death penalty.
* Surveys and interviews of district attorneys indicate that some prosecutors "use the death penalty as a 'bargaining chip' to secure plea bargains for lesser sentences."
* Previous research provides no clear indication whether the death penalty acts as a method of crime prevention.
* The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed 29 percent of capital cases on direct appeal.
* Although any traumatic trial may cause stress and pain for jurors, the victims' family, and the defendant's family, the pressure may be at its peak during death penalty trials.

Quite apart from the fact that a person in solitary is off the street anyway.

[General Zod]

I'd only be in favor if there were a completely rock solid case against the criminal in question. (IE - clear substantial evidence). Beyond that, I think permanent incarceration is better than risking accidentally killing someone who isn't guilty.

The problem is, if you place a sufficiently high burden of evidence on death penalty cases to prevent that from occouring (as is only appropriate), you'll reduce not only false posetives, but true posetives as well: i.e. fewer innocent people get convicted, but fewer guilty people get convicted also (since there will always be guilty suspects whose cases are borderline with the lower burden of evidence associated with life in prison).

I'm not sure how this contradicts what I just said. If you have to have a rock solid case against someone, then I'd rather a few people not get handed the death sentence if they deserved it even though there wasn't sufficient evidence (relegated to Life or something lesser instead), than executing someone who isn't guilty.

PS: there is also the issue of a "perfect" test being unattainable: you will get false posetives to some degree.

"Rock solid" evidence does not need to be perfect. However there should be very little room for error or doubt involved. (Such as a clear video of the person commiting the crime).