[Warrior]

Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My point is much less focused than your question to be honest. The fact that race does effect the question of if the death penalty is sought either the race of the accused or the victim doesnt matter which leads to questionable outcomes. The fact that some DA's go to the extreme effort to load jury pools with less diversity brings up the convictions of one race by a jury that consists entirely of another. My point is that until justice is perfect then sentencing someone to death is without merit or common sense. Justice based upon emotion is no different than lynch squads as I see it.

The issue of loaded juries and convictions of innocent people have nothing at all to do with whether the death penalty is a valid form of punishment for some crimes. Although it would be equally wrong, if you hold this position, it only makes sense that you not favor any form of punishment for any crime until justice is perfect.

The issue of innocent people being convicted should be a concern, but it is a different concern than whether the death penalty should or should not exist. They are totally seperate questions. If someone doesn't think the death penalty should exist, I think the argument needs to be that it is, for some reason, out of proportion to any possible crime and therefore not a valid sentence for anything.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The issue of innocent people being convicted should be a concern, but it is a different concern than whether the death penalty should or should not exist. They are totally seperate questions.

The death penalty is the one punishment that can never be corrected or compensated for if the convict is found to have been innocent. I think that warrants special consideration.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The death penalty is the one punishment that can never be corrected or compensated for if the convict is found to have been innocent. I think that warrants special consideration.

I disagree. What compensation will you give to someone who spent years of their life in prison for something they didn't do? We might give them a large sum of money or something similar, but that doesn't come close to correcting or compensating them for the damage done.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I disagree. What compensation will you give to someone who spent years of their life in prison for something they didn't do? We might give them a large sum of money or something similar, but that doesn't come close to correcting or compensating them for the damage done.

Of course the compensation will not be satisfactory (in most cases), but at least compensation of some kind is possible. Execution, however, is the point of no return.

[Seriously]

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The death penalty is the one punishment that can never be corrected or compensated for if the convict is found to have been innocent. I think that warrants special consideration.

I think most people get that. No one wants to kill innocent people. But in this case the aspect of innocence is a moot point, he is obviously guilty. This is where you actually decide if you are for the death penalty or not. No straw men, no statistics....just one obviously guilty man. Should he die for his crime or not?

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think most people get that. No one wants to kill innocent people. But in this case the aspect of innocence is a moot point, he is obviously guilty. This is where you actually decide if you are for the death penalty or not. No straw men, no statistics....just one obviously guilty man. Should he die for his crime or not?

I can't very well separate the question of this man's sentence from that of the government's general policy. Yes, we have the murders on tape. His guilt has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. But numerous other people have been wrongfully convicted while supposedly under the same standard of proof, so if the government uses the death penalty for cases like this one, then how do we ensure that it does not use it when it is less than certain? Including the death penalty in the repertoire of punishments carries a significant risk of such abuse, one that I do not think we should take.

And while I don't really care about this man's life, I don't think we have a duty to enforce retribution on his victims' behalf, either. The government should prevent crime, but seeking equal punishment after the threat to society has been eliminated brings in moral obligations that the government should not be considering, given the diversity of the people's views.

[Seriously]

Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can't very well separate the question of this man's sentence from that of the government's general policy. Yes, we have the murders on tape. His guilt has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. But numerous other people have been wrongfully convicted while supposedly under the same standard of proof, so if the government uses the death penalty for cases like this one, then how do we ensure that it does not use it when it is less than certain? Including the death penalty in the repertoire of punishments carries a significant risk of such abuse, one that I do not think we should take.

I would encourage putting stronger checks and balances in place when the death penalty is being considered.

	And while I don't really care about this man's life, I don't think we have a duty to enforce retribution on his victims' behalf, either. The government should prevent crime, but seeking equal punishment after the threat to society has been eliminated brings in moral obligations that the government should not be considering, given the diversity of the people's views.

I don't view it as retribution I view it as punishment for a crime. A consequence for an action.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would encourage putting stronger checks and balances in place when the death penalty is being considered.

Like what? What is stronger than proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

	I don't view it as retribution I view it as punishment for a crime. A consequence for an action.

What is the difference?

[Holiman]

Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The issue of loaded juries and convictions of innocent people have nothing at all to do with whether the death penalty is a valid form of punishment for some crimes. Although it would be equally wrong, if you hold this position, it only makes sense that you not favor any form of punishment for any crime until justice is perfect. The issue of innocent people being convicted should be a concern, but it is a different concern than whether the death penalty should or should not exist. They are totally seperate questions. If someone doesn't think the death penalty should exist, I think the argument needs to be that it is, for some reason, out of proportion to any possible crime and therefore not a valid sentence for anything.

How can you say the first is beyond me while I agree this problem does effect any type of punishment. The death penalty once carried out cannot be undone, people can and have been released with payment regardless of unfair at least theyre alive. There have been death row inmates sent free and the burden for these trials is the highest that exhists already. I dont require a perfect system just that this causes me to question the need for a death penalty.

This is also just one of my problems, I admit some people are entirely guilty of the crime and deserve whatever horrible retribution they earn. I only object to our goverment putting people to death with a system so full of faults and problems.

[Antares]

Why is retribution even necessary? What does it do, constructively? If not to set right society's seemingly offended sense of justice? I think it's a given that it's more expensive to execute someone than to keep someone in prison for life. The point of the justice system is to rehabilitate and help society as a whole. I don't see how killing a murderer would help society, barring the narrow possibility of break out.

[hubcap]

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why is retribution even necessary? What does it do, constructively? If not to set right society's seemingly offended sense of justice? I think it's a given that it's more expensive to execute someone than to keep someone in prison for life. The point of the justice system is to rehabilitate and help society as a whole. I don't see how killing a murderer would help society, barring the narrow possibility of break out.

I don't view it as retribution. It is insurance that the guilty person will no longer be able to perpetrate crimes against others.

The argument that they should just be kept in prison is specious, as they are just as violent in prison, and against people who may have no history of violence whatsoever.

[Holiman]

The argument that life in prison is better than the death penalty is specious but arguing concern for the welfare of felons in prison with murderers isnt.....


OK feel free to explain that, cause im smelling something foul.

[Antares]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't view it as retribution. It is insurance that the guilty person will no longer be able to perpetrate crimes against others. The argument that they should just be kept in prison is specious, as they are just as violent in prison, and against people who may have no history of violence whatsoever.

The system seems too fallible to be able to carry out acts with stakes this high. Some murders occur in a moment of passion, some by accident, some in self defense, and not all are due to having a violent nature. Condemning all murderers just because some are inherently violent is unethical.

[Vai]

Pretend you're running a chicken farm.

You find out that a particular chicken was responsible for deliberately breaking eggs and killing chicks. It is obviously in your best interests to remove that chicken to protect the rest of the chickens.

Now what will you do with the criminal chicken? Axe it and make an example for other would-be bad chickens? Feed and house the chicken until its natural death? Or confine it in hopes it will no longer harm other chickens when released?

Axing is cheap and quick, and sends a very strong message. But PETA will scream bloody murder.


In my case I would tell PETA to take a hike and have chicken dinner tonight. Coming back to the topic at hand, I could care less how the execution is carried out, I only care that the criminal pays the price for murdering two men.

The imperfect justice system is something that needs to be addressed, but should not to be used as an excuse to prevent execution in this particular case.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by Vai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pretend you're running a chicken farm.

Hoo boy. That is a terrible analogy. A few points:

1. Human life is more important to our society than avian life.
2. There is nothing to be gained by executing the prisoner. (The chicken, by contrast, would be axed eventually anyway for its meat.)
3. Pursuing the death penalty for the prisoner would actually cost more than imprisoning him for life.

[Seriously]

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Like what? What is stronger than proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Requiring something to the effect of standing with a smoking gun over the dead body. ie irrefutable proof of guilt.

	What is the difference?

Retribution is an emotional response. Punishment is adhering to a predetermined response for an action.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The argument that life in prison is better than the death penalty is specious but arguing concern for the welfare of felons in prison with murderers isnt.....

If you put a person into prison so he cannot kill again, yet he can kill other prisoners............has your goal been achieved?

A person who is in prison for a non-violent crime such as possession of a kilo of weed is not in the same category as someone who used a crowbar to bash in the skull of the cashier down at 7-11.

---------- Post added 06-21-2010 at 04:52 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The system seems too fallible to be able to carry out acts with stakes this high. Some murders occur in a moment of passion, some by accident, some in self defense, and not all are due to having a violent nature. Condemning all murderers just because some are inherently violent is unethical.

I agree that the system could be improved. Systems can ALWAYS be improved. Capital punishment isn't used in the same way in all states. All murderers aren't condemned to death.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A person who is in prison for a non-violent crime such as possession of a kilo of weed is not in the same category as someone who used a crowbar to bash in the skull of the cashier down at 7-11.

Indeed -- the former person is in the category of "should not be in prison", whereas the latter is in the category of "probably should be". Executing the latter so that we can continue to imprison the former strikes me as kind of missing the point.

[Vai]

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hoo boy. That is a terrible analogy. A few points: Human life is more important to our society than avian life. There is nothing to be gained by executing the prisoner. (The chicken, by contrast, would be axed eventually anyway for its meat.) Pursuing the death penalty for the prisoner would actually cost more than imprisoning him for life.

Of course, I'm not claiming that Human life = Chicken life. Rather I attempted to provide the intuition on why human society has concepts such as crime and punishment, reasons for imprisonment, isolation and execution.

I would contest your claim that executing a criminal is pointless. Certain people can be the worst monsters ever imaginable. Serial killers, sadists for example. Jack the ripper is a good real example. I would eliminate those malefactors quickly rather than risk having them commit another horrible crime.

Imprison them for life and pay for their living costs? No thanks. They claim they are reformed? It's very easy to tell lies and simply commit another crime later (ex: sex offenders). That's negligence.

The death penalty is expensive because it provides employment for lawyers with good rewards if they make a successful defense, and they can try this 3 times. Expensive, but I rather have employed lawyers and bureaucrats getting paid over feeding the guilty murderer.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Requiring something to the effect of standing with a smoking gun over the dead body. ie irrefutable proof of guilt.

In hundreds of cases, proof deemed irrefutable by juries has later been found to be insufficient. When you're satisfied with just seeing the suspect standing over the corpse shortly after the killing, then you're evidently okay going without direct observation of the murder. Are you going to trust eyewitness testimony, or will you require video recordings? Will you be satisfied with fingerprints and blood samples to place the suspect at the scene? If you don't have those, do you just need to match a physical description?

It's hard to define the point at which the evidence becomes too flimsy. And in terms of justice, what is the logic? Are those caught with more evidence more deserving of the death penalty than those who almost got away with the crime?

	Retribution is an emotional response. Punishment is adhering to a predetermined response for an action.

Dictionaries don't exactly agree with you, but no matter. In this context, your distinction doesn't help anything. It's still an unnecessary penalty, and I have yet to see a good reason for it beyond opinions of moral duty.

Here's a test for rationale: if a man is convicted only for attempted murder, and it is clear that he would have killed if not for a certain mishap (a gun jamming, for example), would you still advocate executing him for his crime?

[Holiman]

Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you put a person into prison so he cannot kill again, yet he can kill other prisoners............has your goal been achieved? A person who is in prison for a non-violent crime such as possession of a kilo of weed is not in the same category as someone who used a crowbar to bash in the skull of the cashier down at 7-11. ---------- Post added 06-21-2010 at 04:52 PM ---------- I agree that the system could be improved. Systems can ALWAYS be improved. Capital punishment isn't used in the same way in all states. All murderers aren't condemned to death.

I have no 'goals' I merely stated my objections to the death penalty. Your argument still holds no merit since non violent offenders are already held in the same prison populations with violent ones
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, death row only effects a very small percentage of violent offenders and not always the worse.

The death penalty in no way effects the lack of safety in our corrections systems this is a different argument entirely. Unless you admit the funds wasted on the death penalty could be used to increase safety, maybe then you would have a point.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Indeed -- the former person is in the category of "should not be in prison", whereas the latter is in the category of "probably should be". Executing the latter so that we can continue to imprison the former strikes me as kind of missing the point.

Executing the latter to imprison the former is not the point. The violence perpetrated against the non-violent offenders is simply a by-product.

We can debate the pros and cons forever, but it cannot be denied that after someone is executed they are no longer a threat to anyone.

[Seriously]

Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In hundreds of case, proof deemed irrefutable by juries has later been found to be insufficient. When you're satisfied with just seeing the suspect standing over the corpse shortly after the killing, then you're evidently okay going without direct observation of the murder. Are you going to trust eyewitness testimony, or will you require video recordings? Will you be satisfied with fingerprints and blood samples to place the suspect at the scene? If you don't have those, do you just need to match a physical description? It's hard to define the point at which the evidence becomes too flimsy. And in terms of justice, what is the logic? Are those caught with more evidence more deserving of the death penalty than those who almost got away with the crime?

Again we are using this case as an example and in this case there is no question of his guilt.

Dictionaries don't exactly agree with you, but no matter. In this context, your distinction doesn't help anything. It's still an unnecessary penalty, and I have yet to see a good reason for it beyond opinions of moral duty. Here's a test for rationale: if a man is convicted only for attempted murder, and it is clear that he would have killed if not for a certain mishap (a gun jamming, for example), would you still advocate executing him for his crime?

I was going to add an IMO to the remarks but figured you would probably understand my meaning, which you did.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I suppose we will have to agree to disagree as to whether or not the penalty fits the crime.

In attempted murder there is no dead body, suffering family ergo repercussions are different hence the punishment is different.

[boldbidder]

Our society has laws and part of the contract for being a member of society is to abide by those laws, voiding said contract by breaking the law is subject to the agreed upon punishment. In some states that includes capital punishment, if people want it to change then they should legislate accordingly.

My take, capital punishment is VERY necessary in some cases. A 19 year old hot head who commits a murder if given 20 years will invariably be an infinitely different person than he was at 19 (who isn't different at 39) and could potentially become a productive member of society. The 40 something pedophile axe murder needs to be put down. Quickly. Ammo is expensive as hell right now, a guillotine composed of SV30 would be infinitely more cost effective.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again we are using this case as an example and in this case there is no question of his guilt.

As I explained before, however, the sentencing in this case should not be considered as an isolated incident. Either the government has the death penalty as an option, or it doesn't. Until we come up with some new standards of proof (which may not be feasible), innocent people will be at risk of being put to death.

	I suppose we will have to agree to disagree as to whether or not the penalty fits the crime.

Oh, but that's not what I'm arguing. The death penalty certainly does fit the crime in the most literal sense (eye for an eye, life for a life). I'm saying that there's no valid reason to make it fit.

	In attempted murder there is no dead body, suffering family ergo repercussions are different hence the punishment is different.

This is the key difference. You evidently believe that the punishment should be based — at least in part — on the outcome, not just on the criminal's intent. So if this man had unsuccessfully attempted murder, then you would not advocate executing him, correct?

That is why I call it retribution. If the rationale includes satisfaction of the family's desire for revenge, or an ideal of "getting even," then it is assuming a moral duty of the government. That means that it is no longer about protecting society, but about enforcing a particular perception of fairness, one which I find rather strange in the context of attempted vs. actual murder.