Are You Against the Death Penalty and Why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm against it for the reason I just don't see what it achieves other than a shallow feeling of revenge, I'm English and it's never been a part of life here though in my lifetime.

Incidentally there was a programme on BBC3 last week featuring and speaking with two guys on death row, one of them was part of a rape of two woman and killing of a man in a robbery he seemed cold to it all and pretty much unrelenting. The other was a young (black for what it's worth) man called Anthony Haynes that shot an killed a man (an off duty cop) in Houston. The versions of events differed based on what you beleive but according to the prosecution he and his friends were trying to rob people and he shot the man when he approached him and went for his pocket, allegedly out of panic (according to the murderer).

He spoke with (seemingly) genuine remorse and it made me think although he did a truly awful thing and should be imprisoned for life I felt he was in some part a product of gun culture / society and I also wondered would this man be on death row if he was white and it was a regular bloke he killed?

As it happened he had a temporary reprieve an hour before his execution and remains on death row.
 
Only read the OP.

It's wrong to kill, easy as that basically.

Also, in the west, the whole death row thing costs so much more then just locking people up for life.. I don't get why they still bother.
 
Manmademan said:
The funding for corrections officers, police, etc comes from the state, and from taxpayers. There is a vested interest from the state and from taxpayers to keep this number as low as possible. Cops and judges don't set their own budgets. The legislature and governor do. Corrections (at least in my state) is UNDERFUNDED relative to the amount of prisoners we have. This is not the exception across the states, but the rule.



I see you have a reading comprehension problem. both armed robbery and murder would be "violent crime" and the individual would not be rehabilitated.



PA is the 6th largest state in the country, with over 50 thousand inmates in the state system. It's most CERTAINLY significant.



dude, you're clueless. it's night and day. in 1994 the PA prison system had less than 10 thousand inmates. it's quintupled since then and looks and operates nothing like the early 90s. Nationwide, non violent offenders, parole violators, and drug crimes make up the VAST MAJORITY of inmates and arrests, which was not the case in 1994.

Even if the death penalty isn't used the whole point is that its supposed to act as a deterrent, and as punishment... along with those other things I mentioned.



Again, clueless. No one within the prison system has a job description of "punishment", yet a full third of the employees I have are dedicated towards rehabilitation. Have you ever actually been IN a maximum security prison to see how it works, or are you repeating what you heard online?
Click to expand...
There would be a vested interest too keep crime low if most people didn't think the people were getting what was coming to them in prison. How many times have you heard jokes about prison showers? Its a joke because most people think they're in jail and they deserve it aka punishment.
The drug war also shows how the state doesn't care about keeping budgets low for crime, and being lax on crime is political suicide for most places on the US.

In the original statistic I was talking about you were specifically talking about how people are rehabilitated if they didn't commit the same exact crime, with that definition an armed robber turned murderer would be rehabilitated.

And yet its still only 1 state out of 50...

Nationwide in 1994 the number of violent crimes was about 1/3 of non-violent crime it still is.

So because someone's job does specifically describe something that means that can't do it? When you throw a guy in solitary confinement dl you call it rehabilitation?

If the justice system isn't built on punishment why are background checks so prevalent. Hell even after people serve their time they are still punished for the rest of their lives
 
Oersted said:
To the few here who defend death punishment, where would you say stop? Where would you say this is unacceptable?

collosseum-rome-italy+1152_12853867362-tpfil02aw-9316.jpg


That form will never change.
Click to expand...

What is it with you and extremes? Not everything is a slippery slope that leads to mass genocide and torture.
 
reckless said:
There would be a vested interest too keep crime low if most people didn't think the people were getting what was coming to them in prison. How many times have you heard jokes about prison showers? Its a joke because most people think they're in jail and they deserve it aka punishment.
Click to expand...

So jokes about prison showers means that the entire prison system is dedicated towards punishment? That's insane, and not only is it insane, it's also inaccurate. Prison rape as most would consider it is extremely rare, and almost all prison sex is consensual.

The drug war also shows how the state doesn't care about keeping budgets low for crime, and being lax on crime is political suicide for most places on the US.
Click to expand...

The war on drugs is a relic from the early 90s, much like that study you cited. There is a trend both within my state and elsewhere to REVERSE the policies that were put in place back then. The obama administration has already reversed the 100 to 1 sentencing disparity regarding crack and powdered cocaine, and many states and municipalities have taken it upon themselves to decriminalize simple marijuana possession.

Having prisons overcrowded with inmates is a hazard, and NO ONE within the state system wants it to continue at this rate. Not officers, not judges, not lawyers, not adminstrators. Changing this requires LEGISLATION, which is on the backs of voters, not the criminal justice system. Want marijuana legalized? Vote for governors and state senators that back it. There's nothing the "justice system" could do.

In the original statistic I was talking about you were specifically talking about how people are rehabilitated if they didn't commit the same exact crime, with that definition an armed robber turned murderer would be rehabilitated.
Click to expand...

I was talking about crime CATEGORIES, not the "exact same crime". I posted a chart to help you out some time ago, but it doesn't look like you read it.

And yet its still only 1 state out of 50...
Click to expand...

you know how I know you don't understand statistics?

Nationwide in 1994 the number of violent crimes was about 1/3 of non-violent crime it still is.
Click to expand...

Nationwide in 1994 the violent crime rate was nearly twice what it is now, and we only incarcerated 1/5 of the inmates we currently do. It's not comparable.

So because someone's job does specifically describe something that means that can't do it? When you throw a guy in solitary confinement dl you call it rehabilitation?
Click to expand...

Solitary confinement is very, very limited in terms of how it can be used and when. There's also a matter of capacity. I have 4 thousand inmates, and space in solitary for maybe 100- if that. And MANY of those spaces are reserved for capital cases (death row), those that are simply too dangerous to be kept within general population, and those that have requested it, like notorious child molesters or certain transgender inmates.

If the justice system isn't built on punishment why are background checks so prevalent. Hell even after people serve their time they are still punished for the rest of their lives
Click to expand...

completely clueless. the justice system has nothing to do with whether or not private employers perform background checks. that's on private industry. and "the rest of their lives??" Felony convictions are only relevant for 7 years. farther back than that they generally can't ask, outside of a few cases where security clearance or working with children are involved. the only "lifetime" punishments that are handed out are for Megan's Law, and even then it's only for Level 3 offenses.

You've repeatedly demonstrated you have no idea how the justice system works.
 
Manmademan said:
So jokes about prison showers means that the entire prison system is dedicated towards punishment? That's insane, and not only is it insane, it's also inaccurate. Prison rape as most would consider it is extremely rare, and almost all prison sex is consensual.



The war on drugs is a relic from the early 90s, much like that study you cited. There is a trend both within my state and elsewhere to REVERSE the policies that were put in place back then. The obama administration has already reversed the 100 to 1 sentencing disparity regarding crack and powdered cocaine, and many states and municipalities have taken it upon themselves to decriminalize simple marijuana possession.

Having prisons overcrowded with inmates is a hazard, and NO ONE within the state system wants it to continue at this rate. Not officers, not judges, not lawyers, not adminstrators. Changing this requires LEGISLATION, which is on the backs of voters, not the criminal justice system. Want marijuana legalized? Vote for governors and state senators that back it. There's nothing the "justice system" could do.



I was talking about crime CATEGORIES, not the "exact same crime". I posted a chart to help you out some time ago, but it doesn't look like you read it.



you know how I know you don't understand statistics?



Nationwide in 1994 the violent crime rate was twice what it was, and we only incarcerated 1/5 of the inmates we currently do. It's not comparable.



Solitary confinement is very, very limited in terms of how it can be used and when. There's also a matter of capacity. I have 4 thousand inmates, and space in solitary for maybe 100- if that. And MANY of those spaces are reserved for capital cases (death row), those that are simply too dangerous to be kept within general population, and those that have requested it, like notorious child molesters or certain transgender inmates.



completely clueless. the justice system has nothing to do with whether or not private employers perform background checks. that's on private industry. and "the rest of their lives??" Felony convictions are only relevant for 7 years. farther back than that they generally can't ask, outside of a few cases where security clearance or working with children are involved. the only "lifetime" punishments that are handed out are for Megan's Law, and even then it's only for Level 3 offenses.

You've repeatedly demonstrated you have no idea how the justice system works.
Click to expand...

The whole point of me bringing up the shower jokes is that its a common prison joke and people aren't horrified about it. They make fun of the idea of people being raped because 'they're in prison they deserve it' mindset.

So the states are just beginning to reverse some of these punishment type policies... that implies that prison was and still is a punishment based system and is only starting to transform into more of a rehabilitation system.

Trying to use one state as a barometer for the whole country is a terrible idea. They are very different in regards to laws, sentences, private vs gov't prisons etc. You could go look at recidivism rates only in California and talked about how they are insanely high or you could go talked about only Oregon and show how they are really low.

Crime rate has changed a lot since 1994 but the ratio of total crimes between violent and nonviolent is about the same. And the total crime maters in this context not crime rate.

That varies by state and county. Hell go look at sheriff Joe over in Arizona and the prisons there. Once again your prison or even the prisons in PA don't equal the state of prisons nationwide. And yet you hear stories about people being in solitary for decades or years...

So it can still be used as a lifetime punishment... even if it is only in some cases it stilt becomes a lifetime punishment for many people.
 
foxtrot3d said:
What is it with you and extremes? Not everything is a slippery slope that leads to mass genocide and torture.
Click to expand...

America has reestablished torture in the western world. So eh. But that wasnt my point. My point was where do you say no. Where do you say stop?
 
1. Criminal system is not perfect. Death sentence is irreversible.

2. The more we understand the brain, the more we understand thr choices people make, mental illness, etc. Prison should be about protecting society and rehabilitation. Punitive punishment has limited meaning. It can serve as a deterrance and as a sobering consequence, but other than that it is pointless.

3. State sponsored killing seems additionally immoral to me. We want to reduce violence. Responding with unnecessary violence is pointless.
 
reckless said:
The whole point of me bringing up the shower jokes is that its a common prison joke and people aren't horrified about it. They make fun of the idea of people being raped because 'they're in prison they deserve it' mindset.
Click to expand...

pretty sure the majority of people don't think rape is funny. If you disagree, feel free to make a thread about rape jokes.

So the states are just beginning to reverse some of these punishment type policies... that implies that prison was and still is a punishment based system and is only starting to transform into more of a rehabilitation system.
Click to expand...

Again you fail to distinguish between punitive LEGISLATION and the CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM. These are two completely different arms of the justice system. Just because a bad law (crack disparity) was put into place does not mean the point of the entire corrections system is punitive.

Trying to use one state as a barometer for the whole country is a terrible idea. They are very different in regards to laws, sentences, private vs gov't prisons etc. You could go look at recidivism rates only in California and talked about how they are insanely high or you could go talked about only Oregon and show how they are really low.
Click to expand...

Again, statistics. I used concrete data on reoffense ratios from a population of 50 thousand inmates, drawn from various races, backgrounds, states of origin (yes, there are plenty of people from other states that end up here) and economic strata. "laws and sentences" are irrelevant regarding recidivism, PEOPLE are relevant. given that there are only 2.3 million inmates TOTAL, a sampling of fifty thousand is more than statistically significant.

Crime rate has changed a lot since 1994 but the ratio of total crimes between violent and nonviolent is about the same. And the total crime maters in this context not crime rate.
Click to expand...

in 1994 the ONLY people locked up were the most violent offenders. in 2014 the majority are nonviolent drug users. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand for you. The prison system is not the same, and the populations are radically different. Comparing incarceration and rearrest figures from 1994 to 2014 is meaningless, since we were not arresting the same people.

That varies by state and county. Hell go look at sheriff Joe over in Arizona and the prisons there. Once again your prison or even the prisons in PA don't equal the state of prisons nationwide. And yet you hear stories about people being in solitary for decades or years...
Click to expand...

The standards on what you can or cannot do with solitary confinement are federal, and run afoul of constitutional protections. One certainly CAN end up in solitary for decades- but this is extreme.

So it can still be used as a lifetime punishment... even if it is only in some cases it stilt becomes a lifetime punishment for many people.
Click to expand...

There's a reason Level 3 megan's law offenses (for the most part) are lifetime. Sexual orientation is a lot harder to "rehabilitate" than violent crime or arson. And very few inmates rank as level 3 megan's law offenders in regards to those incarcerated. "many" is simply wrong.

As of this, I'm done with you. You demonstrate no ability to understand context or statistics, and display no interest in doing so.
 
When they are dead, they can't suffer anymore. So let them rot in prison for life instead.
For the guilty it seems like an easy way out. Plus the whole stuff about society shouldn't commit murder yada yada higher morale ground... but mostly the first thing.
 
My core reason is one that a lot of people would consider hopelessly naive: I believe that it's immoral to kill someone who's been safely detained, does not pose an immediate threat to anyone, and is completely at your mercy. I think society should take the high road and stick to this standard even when the person in question is a killer.
 
Oersted said:
To the few here who defend death punishment, where would you say stop? Where would you say this is unacceptable?[/QUOTE=Oersted;105527234]

Ridiculous. These comparisons are cartoonish to the point of not even being relevant. Do you really think that prison rehabilitates, that it cures people of the kind of illness that killers have? I think thats naive and I never known a person to come out of prison a better person.
Click to expand...
 
I have no moral quandaries with executing murderers, and the like.

However, I have no faith in the system that is in place to decide so, for a multitude of reasons, many of which Im sure have already been shared in this thread.
 
Manmademan said:
pretty sure the majority of people don't think rape is funny. If you disagree, feel free to make a thread about rape jokes.



Again you fail to distinguish between punitive LEGISLATION and the CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM. These are two completely different arms of the justice system. Just because a bad law (crack disparity) was put into place does not mean the point of the entire corrections system is punitive.



Again, statistics. I used concrete data on reoffense ratios from a population of 50 thousand inmates, drawn from various races, backgrounds, states of origin (yes, there are plenty of people from other states that end up here) and economic strata. "laws and sentences" are irrelevant regarding recidivism, PEOPLE are relevant. given that there are only 2.3 million inmates TOTAL, a sampling of fifty thousand is more than statistically significant.



in 1994 the ONLY people locked up were the most violent offenders. in 2014 the majority are nonviolent drug users. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand for you. The prison system is not the same, and the populations are radically different. Comparing incarceration and rearrest figures from 1994 to 2014 is meaningless, since we were not arresting the same people.



The standards on what you can or cannot do with solitary confinement are federal, and run afoul of constitutional protections. One certainly CAN end up in solitary for decades- but this is extreme.



There's a reason Level 3 megan's law offenses (for the most part) are lifetime. Sexual orientation is a lot harder to "rehabilitate" than violent crime or arson. And very few inmates rank as level 3 megan's law offenders in regards to those incarcerated. "many" is simply wrong.

As of this, I'm done with you. You demonstrate no ability to understand context or statistics, and display no interest in doing so.
Click to expand...

Its a pretty common joke...

Why is our prison system so different from a nations like Norway then if we are about rehabilitation?

Each state administering their prisons and having their own laws is very important in comparing recidivism rates.
I'll just post this from a pew study on the subject.

"Comparing State Rates: a note of cautIon
Readers are advised to use caution when comparing recidivism rates across states . a state’s recidivism rate is the product of numerous variables, and valid interstate assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the wide range of unique conditions affecting corrections agencies in each state ."

"Recidivism rates vary widely among the states, and there are a number of potential explanations for the differences. Many deliberate policy decisions, such as the types of offenders sentenced to prison, how inmates are selected for release, the length of stay under supervision, and decisions about how to respond to violations of supervision, can have a large impact on recidivism rates. States differ markedly with regard to these practices, which influence recidivism rates to a strikingly high degree"
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFi...ecidivism_Revolving_Door_America_Prisons .pdf

Looks pretty similar to me...
corrections-in-the-united-states_0442512_21.jpg
 
BearFlexington said:
Ridiculous. These comparisons are cartoonish to the point of not even being relevant. Do you really think that prison rehabilitates, that it cures people of the kind of illness that killers have? I think thats naive and I never known a person to come out of prison a better person.
Click to expand...

Your previous post in the thread was similarly extreme and ridiculous, but that aside: What would be a "illness that killers have"? What are you talking about?

Rehabilitation may not be a possibility for everyone, but it very much is, for the majority of criminals. That isn't really up to debate.
 
I'm against it because:

1: I don't feel anyone ever really deserves to die, much like how I feel nobody ever deserves to get raped regardless of whatever their past actions may be.

2: I'm for rehabilitation, not punishment. The death penalty as it is now seems to mostly exist to serve some sort of revenge fetish that people have.

3: (Still playing off of #1) As far as I'm convinced, you only get one shot at life. I find that taking away the one thing that is irreplaceable is needlessly cruel.
 
UrbanRats said:
Your previous post in the thread was similarly extreme and ridiculous, but that aside: What would be a "illness that killers have"? What are you talking about?

Rehabilitation may not be a possibility for everyone, but it very much is, for the majority of criminals. That isn't really up to debate.
Click to expand...

"The illness that killers have:"

How is it that you need a definition of this?

Perhaps you can explain to me why a murderer should receive a punishment less the crime.
 
BearFlexington said:
"The illness that killers have:"

How is it that you need a definition of this?

Perhaps you can explain to me why a murderer should receive a punishment less the crime.
Click to expand...
I know the definition of "illness", i know the definition of "killer".
I didn't know that all killers had an illness in common, so i ask you WHAT illness would this be.

As far as I know, different people kill for different reasons, so different killers have varying chances of being rehabilitated.
--
I don't even believe in punishment as the basic principle guiding imprisonment, i think rehabilitation should be the basis for a justice system, so there you go.
 
UrbanRats said:
I know the definition of "illness", i know the definition of "killer".
I didn't know that all killers had an illness in common, so i ask you WHAT illness would this be.

As far as I know, different people kill for different reasons, so different killers have varying chances of being rehabilitated.
--
I don't even believe in punishment as the basic principle guiding imprisonment, i think rehabilitation should be the basis for a justice system, so there you go.
Click to expand...

"As far as I know."

I respect your stance but cannot agree with it.

I believe that the mental buffer that exists for most people; the safeguard for the rest of us against violent action is not something easily broached. I appreciate your opinion but feel it is naive.

You talk about killing for various reasons with the simple irreverence of someone whose understanding of the subject matter is shallow and pedestrian.

I'd be interested in seeing numbers on how many rehabilitated murderers contribute something to society, and no I don't consider the Machete movies contribution.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/dec/06/danny-trejo-hole-gas-chamber

As for the "rubbish" comment; that's constructive.
 
I'm against it if only because it seems to be more expensive to kill them than keep them alive. And I think a lifetime of imprisonment is a worse punishment than a fast and painless death.

I'm in favor of forced labor upon people that commit serious crimes. They should work to pay for what they get. When there are people that haven't harmed a soul in their life that need to struggle to get food for their families, criminals shouldn't get 3 meals and a bed for free


Then again my views might be different because the justice system in my country sucks. Criminals can do whatever the hell they want, other than directly hurting someone they can do anything and hardly see any prison time. Hell, even if they go to prison the only thing they get are friends and more contacts once they get out.
And don't you dare to lay a finger on the guy who is mugging you or you might get arrested for assaulting the poor fellow. Some asshole stole stuff from your store and you have him on cammera doing so? yeah... that's not considered evidence.
 
For it. Evil people need to be destroyed.
I believe that if you murder someone. The victims family should decide your fate. To forgive or to bring the ultimate punishment. The assailant took someones life into his or her own hands. So the family should decide on his or her fate.
 
Octavion Rex said:
For it. Evil people need to be destroyed.
I believe that if you murder someone. The victims family should decide your fate. To forgive or to bring the ultimate punishment. The assailant took someones life into his or her own hands. So the family should decide on his or her fate.
Click to expand...

Are you in favour of victims determining the punishment for all crimes?
 
Octavion Rex said:
For it. Evil people need to be destroyed.
I believe that if you murder someone. The victims family should decide your fate. To forgive or to bring the ultimate punishment. The assailant took someones life into his or her own hands. So the family should decide on his or her fate.
Click to expand...
As long as they have to carry it out themselves.
 
BearFlexington said:
I believe that the mental buffer that exists for most people; the safeguard for the rest of us against violent action is not something easily broached. I appreciate your opinion but feel it is naive.

You talk about killing for various reasons with the simple irreverence of someone whose understanding of the subject matter is shallow and pedestrian.
Click to expand...

If my understanding of the murderer's mind is "shallow and pedestrian", i would like you to share your thoughts on the matter, because frankly i find the thought of grouping all killers under the same mental umbrella just absurd.

So i ask you again, what is this "illness" that all killers (from the psychotic serial killer to the drunken driver, to the jealous husband, to the armed robber) share, exactly?
 
Octavion Rex said:
For it. Evil people need to be destroyed.
I believe that if you murder someone. The victims family should decide your fate. To forgive or to bring the ultimate punishment. The assailant took someones life into his or her own hands. So the family should decide on his or her fate.
Click to expand...

What if the family ruins it by not being bloodthirsty enough? Or worse, are part of some extreme Christian group that believes in turning the other cheek?

You want to just let the murderer walk free?
 
Against it for the simple reason that the justice system is fallible to say the least. When men and women's lives are at stake there are no acceptable margins of error.
 
Octavion Rex said:
For it. Evil people need to be destroyed.
I believe that if you murder someone. The victims family should decide your fate. To forgive or to bring the ultimate punishment. The assailant took someones life into his or her own hands. So the family should decide on his or her fate.
Click to expand...

What about wrongly accused people? Too bad?
 
Another fact to consider in this is that putting a murderer in jail for life doesn't necessarily stop them from killing. Many of those people can and do kill other inmates, people who maybe could be rehabilitated. Having the death penalty would very likely save lives, ironically enough.
 
OldKentuckyShark said:
Another fact to consider in this is that putting a murderer in jail for life doesn't necessarily stop them from killing. Many of those people can and do kill other inmates, people who maybe could be rehabilitated. Having the death penalty would very likely save lives, ironically enough.
Click to expand...
You say this but don't seem in any way aware of the insane precedent involved with punishing people for things they might do.
 
Cyan said:
What if the family ruins it by not being bloodthirsty enough? Or worse, are part of some extreme Christian group that believes in turning the other cheek?

You want to just let the murderer walk free?
Click to expand...

What if the family doesn't give a shit about the victim? What if the victim had no family nor friends? Who has the right to decide then?
 
Kano on the Phone said:
You say this but don't seem in any way aware of the insane precedent involved with punishing people for things they might do.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that all people who in jail for life should be put to death, I'm just saying that there are deaths of people who might not deserve it that could have been prevented by executing someone, just like there are deaths of innocent people who are executed. Either action (death penalty or no) can save lives. There are positives to executing someone.
 
OldKentuckyShark said:
I'm not saying that all people who in jail for life should be put to death, I'm just saying that there are deaths of people who might not deserve it that could have been prevented by executing someone, just like there are deaths of innocent people who are executed. Either action (death penalty or no) can save lives. There are positives to executing someone.
Click to expand...
Ok, so your argument is "maybe either put people to death or don't." All right.
 
Did not read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if this opinion has already be voiced.

I am absolutely for the death penalty, so long as it is certainly deserved. Either by DNA or confession. I believe a life in prison would be a worse sentence ( in my opinion ) than death, but it costs far too much to keep a prisoner.
 
OldKentuckyShark said:
I'm saying that either way people who might not deserve it will die.
Click to expand...

Ok then.

Drain You said:
Did not read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if this opinion has already be voiced.

I am absolutely for the death penalty, so long as it is certainly deserved. Either by DNA or confession. I believe a life in prison would be a worse sentence ( in my opinion ) than death, but it costs far too much to keep a prisoner.
Click to expand...
As has been stated, over and over, it costs more to kill someone than to keep them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Why Files
26
550
Diatribe1974 replied
The Death of Snow White - Exclusive Trailer (2025)
20
968
Major Insano replied
Why are people buying iPods again?
2
84
2K
nightfly replied
Why are mods deleting threads with no explanation?
14
508
Plies replied
Neuroscientist claims evidence of post-death brain communication
36
569
Hudo replied
Top Bottom