Still believe in the death Penalty?

[North East Goon]

[quote=evman150;1380913]


It's actually quite a bit different than the abortion argument. I can understand both sides of the abortion argument. I can't understand the other side of the state murdering argument. You are against some murders but for some murders? How is that not an inconsistent position? But we're murdering murderers so it's okay? So who murders the government who has now become a murderer? After all, they're murderers as well and are now deserving of being murdered.

quote]

If the death penalty possibility stops one person from murdering - then it is a success. For the record, I am for no murders state sponsored or random psycho.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The only thing against it is, us taxpayers have to pay for that person.
...
Is death penalty easier?

It is significantly MORE expensive in the US to put someone to death than too keep that person in jail for the rest of their life (thanks to the lengthy mandatory, but neccessary, appeals process).

Neither is it easier, I would say. A death sentence in the US causes a great amount of extra work to be done.

[BuzzardsWife]

I am pro-death penalty but once in a while a death penalty story will pull at my heartstrings..especially if the person being put to death is mentally disabled. But I think most people that are executed are rightly done so. It's just not a perfect system. I remember one poster saying that the its fair to execute someone if the executor gets killed at the same time. My grandfather worked in the prison system way back when Canada still had the death penalty. His job was to take the body down after it had been hung. He was an immigrant from Scotland and it was that job or starve. He ended up working his way up in the system, but that was the only job he could find to feed his family when they first got to Canada. He never talked about it and he passed when I was 9, but I'm sure he hated his job. I don't think the executioner was any worse. It was his job. We don't know what it was like to starve like these people, and to take a job, as lousy as it was, over watching our kids starve and go without clothes or shoes, or shelter. I wouldn't like it if I was the one who put the needle in, or the one that turned the i.v. on..but it is a job..and as they say, someone has to do it.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

As soon as you break the laws of society, you are then no longer subject to the same sympathy as a normal citizen. If he killed people in a state that has capital punishment and a jury found him guilty with malice, then he has to accept the punishment of the state.

Its not complicated, and yes I believe in capital punishment.

This is circular logic question begging.

A similar argument would go as follows:

He was a Jew in Poland during WW2. Jews were to be put to death in Poland during WW2. He was put to death. Accept the punishment of the state. It's not complicated.

I find it amusing how many of the death penalty advocates fall prey to logical fallacies and present so many flawed, specious arguments.

As usual with these things, correlations abound no doubt.

[MarchHare]

If the death penalty possibility stops one person from murdering - then it is a success.

And what if the death penalty results in the execution of wrongfully-convicted innocents (which is does)?

Is the death penalty still a success if a net positive number of lives are saved by the state killing more would-be repeat murderers than wrongfully-convicted innocent citizens?

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by evman150

This is circular logic question begging.

A similar argument would go as follows:

He was a Jew in Poland during WW2. Jews were to be put to death in Poland during WW2. He was put to death. Accept the punishment of the state. It's not complicated.

I find it amusing how many of the death penalty advocates fall prey to logical fallacies and present so many flawed, specious arguments.

As usual with these things, correlations abound no doubt.

Sorry for being a bit off topic here, but since I'm Polish I would like to quickly correct the statement (even though I know that's not what you're getting at). Jews were not put to death in Poland by the Polish state. They were put to death by the Nazi German state in former Polish territory that was occupied under Germany. I might be a little picky, but this is a common mistake made in numerous publications that gives off the impression that Poland was actively involved in genocide, whereas this all happened in what at that time was Germany. Poland did not exist from 1939-1945.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by joe_mullen

Sorry for being a bit off topic here, but since I'm Polish I would like to quickly correct the statement (even though I know that's not what you're getting at). Jews were not put to death in Poland by the Polish state. They were put to death by the Nazi German state in former Polish territory that was occupied under Germany. I might be a little picky, but this is a common mistake made in numerous publications that gives off the impression that Poland was actively involved in genocide, whereas this all happened in what at that time was Germany. Poland did not exist from 1939-1945.

I didn't make a mistake.

It's okay to assume a little intelligence around here once in a while.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by BuzzardsWife

I am pro-death penalty but once in a while a death penalty story will pull at my heartstrings..especially if the person being put to death is mentally disabled. But I think most people that are executed are rightly done so. It's just not a perfect system. I remember one poster saying that the its fair to execute someone if the executor gets killed at the same time. My grandfather worked in the prison system way back when Canada still had the death penalty. His job was to take the body down after it had been hung. He was an immigrant from Scotland and it was that job or starve. He ended up working his way up in the system, but that was the only job he could find to feed his family when they first got to Canada. He never talked about it and he passed when I was 9, but I'm sure he hated his job. I don't think the executioner was any worse. It was his job. We don't know what it was like to starve like these people, and to take a job, as lousy as it was, over watching our kids starve and go without clothes or shoes, or shelter. I wouldn't like it if I was the one who put the needle in, or the one that turned the i.v. on..but it is a job..and as they say, someone has to do it.

What would you say to the families of Thomas Sophonow, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall Jr., Steven Truscott, Erin Walsh? All found innocent years later

All would be dead now if you had that death penalty.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by joe_mullen

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/...in204759.shtml
http://www.truthinjustice.org/68percent.htm

These error rates are ridiculous. I wonder if anyone has actually gone back and re-examined the cases of those who actually were executed to try to determine a possible error rate of those executed. It's scary to think how many innocent people may have been killed. Add to the fact that it doesn't deter criminals, nor does is have any sort of financial benefit, I'm even more convinced than ever that the death penalty is pointless.

[Dion]

High-profile cases where the courts got it wrong

The wrongful convictions of Donald Marshall Jr., David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin have spotlighted what many call the failure of the Canadian justice system.

Advocates say many convicts who were ultimately exonerated watched their applications languish for years in the federal review board.

On June 8, 2000, then justice minister Anne McLellan announced plans to try to avoid such cases from happening again.

Her proposed changes, since enacted in Section 690 of the Criminal Code of Canada, enable the minister of justice to use his or her discretion to respond to persons who believe they have been wrongfully convicted.

Based on the U.K. experience, the organization believes these represent a small percentage of actual numbers of the wrongly convicted in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wrongfullyconvicted/

[fatso]

nm... not worth it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Dion

High-profile cases where the courts got it wrong

The wrongful convictions of Donald Marshall Jr., David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin have spotlighted what many call the failure of the Canadian justice system.

Advocates say many convicts who were ultimately exonerated watched their applications languish for years in the federal review board.

On June 8, 2000, then justice minister Anne McLellan announced plans to try to avoid such cases from happening again.

Her proposed changes, since enacted in Section 690 of the Criminal Code of Canada, enable the minister of justice to use his or her discretion to respond to persons who believe they have been wrongfully convicted.

Based on the U.K. experience, the organization believes these represent a small percentage of actual numbers of the wrongly convicted in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wrongfullyconvicted/

Do you suppose that if these fellows were going to face the death penalty that their cases would have been better scrutinized. Perhaps they wouldn't have been convicted at all if the jurors knew they were holding a life in their hands. The problem isn't in the sentence but, rather in the judgement that found these fellows guilty in the first place. That's is what needs to be fixed.

[Flames_Gimp]

in regards to those worried about executing the wrongfully accused: you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette

[jammies]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

As soon as you break the laws of society, you are then no longer subject to the same sympathy as a normal citizen. If he killed people in a state that has capital punishment and a jury found him guilty with malice, then he has to accept the punishment of the state.

Its not complicated, and yes I believe in capital punishment.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - Mencken

You seem to be equating morality with law. They are not the same thing. What of the question of whether the state is RIGHT in its laws and their attendant punishments, for simply because a law is on the books does not mean it is just. Segregation was at one time the law in certain states in the USA - does that mean that its targets should have accepted their fate as second-class citizens?

That the law dictates something is a poor argument; better to ask WHY the law is this way before saying it is a good thing or not.

As far as capital punishment goes, the arguments for are generally of two sorts: efficiency and retribution. Neither seems compelling, for efficiency is the last thing we should expect (or want) when dealing with matters as momentous as ending someone's life, be they criminal or not; as far as retribution goes, I would far prefer to live in a society where vendetta is not sanctioned by the government as a legitimate response to injury.

The original article, however, reeks of schmaltz and is a poor argument against capital punishment altogether. The only people it is likely to convince are those who can be swayed by an appeal to the emotions, and that sort are easily manipulated back into the pro-execution stance by an even more heartrending story from the victim's perspective.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Do you suppose that if these fellows were going to face the death penalty that their cases would have been better scrutinized. Perhaps they wouldn't have been convicted at all if the jurors knew they were holding a life in their hands. The problem isn't in the sentence but, rather in the judgement that found these fellows guilty in the first place. That's is what needs to be fixed.

so triers-of-fact are less diligent in their duty when they assigning a life sentence in prison as opposed to assigning the death penalty? Knowing the prisoner will only go to jail and not be executed allows jurors to be more blase?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by jammies

As far as capital punishment goes, the arguments for are generally of two sorts: efficiency and retribution. Neither seems compelling, for efficiency is the last thing we should expect (or want) when dealing with matters as momentous as ending someones life, be they criminal or not; as far as retribution goes, I would far prefer to live in a society where vendetta is not sanctioned by the government as a legitimate response to injury.

Retribution does not equal Vendetta. Neither does punishment equal revenge. Osbourne murderer two people with the full knowledge that the price for such an action was death. He brought this upon himself. The death penalty for murder is a fair law and there is no compelling evidence that the State administered it unjustly.

Mr Osborne is responsible for his own death. No one else.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by fatso

so triers-of-fact are less diligent in their duty when they assigning a life sentence in prison as opposed to assigning the death penalty? Knowing the prisoner will only go to jail and not be executed allows jurors to be more blase?

Probably they are in some ways.

But I think a lot of the death row cases have been overturned for various reasons, chief among those being incompetent legal representation or DNA evidence.

Fix those problems (well DNA is becoming a non issue now) and you'd probably have that number sink well below that 10% Mark. When you have some ######ed judge in Texas and a legal aide lawyer who doesn't know jack ****, maybe it is time to rethink what type of representation that some of these people get.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by fatso

so triers-of-fact are less diligent in their duty when they assigning a life sentence in prison as opposed to assigning the death penalty? Knowing the prisoner will only go to jail and not be executed allows jurors to be more blase?

Yes I've heard statistics before from the anti-death penalty side that show there are less first degree murder convictions when the death penalty is in place. Nobody wants to commit an error that costs someone their life.

Again if the problem is with the legal system than that is what you fix. We shouldn't use it as an excuse to not have capital punishment. Governments can and do enter into unnecessary wars which cost countless lives. That doesn't mean Canada should disband their military. It means that the government should be called to a high accountability when they entertain any declaration of war.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Do you suppose that if these fellows were going to face the death penalty that their cases would have been better scrutinized. Perhaps they wouldn't have been convicted at all if the jurors knew they were holding a life in their hands. The problem isn't in the sentence but, rather in the judgement that found these fellows guilty in the first place. That's is what needs to be fixed.

I would suspect jurors would questioned on the death penalty issue during jury selection. That being i'm not sure how a jury could better scrutinse a case better as they convict based on evidence presented.

I agree that our justice is far from infallible and needs to be fixed. As long as there are problems you'd have a hard time convincing me that capital punishment is just and should be brought back.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

in regards to those worried about executing the wrongfully accused: you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette

And if you happen to be one who is wrongly convicted, you'd sacrifice your own life for the greater good of the death penalty?