Death Penalty

yes and it is also amazing how people will go to whatever means to save a monster. a murder, and could care less about the innocent life that is growing.

So what is your point?

 

The "monster, a murder [sic]" is potentially an innocent life. We only see the mistakes in hindsight. Sometimes.

The "innocent life" that is growing during the first trimester when an abortion would be legal, is not yet a human being.

But even then, Liberals fight to keep funding going so that potential life gets good medical care and nutrition through the mother. If it gets born (many pregnancies miscarry for all kinds of reasons) the eventual human being will be as healthy as it can be, even if the mother herself fails to earn enough money to do so.

It is the Right that couldn't care less about "innocent life".

 

Since the people on death row get very good medical attention while in. and have years of appeals. I guess we do care about the innocent lives.

Liberals they also pay for people to have abortions. they continue to tell people its okay to use abortion as a way of birth control.

the fetus is still a innocent living thing. no matter if you want to count it as a human being or not. its still a innocent life form.

The monster who deserves the death penalty is not innocent.

The left is also the first one to cut education for children when they can't get the tax increases that they want. they much rather give over paid teachers a pay increase then to give that money to the children.

I think only the most horrible of all crimes should the death penalty be a answer to.

and I'm also talking about when there is no doubt at all that the person is the one who committed such acts.

 

Sadly, EVERY execution theoretically involved someone about whom there was "no doubt at all" about their guilt. Yet about 1/4 to 1/3 of ALL executions are of the innocent.

But the system will NEVER work like that. People who we WERE CERTAIN of "guilt", yet were innocent, have and do include the mentally retarded, people framed for whatever reason, people tortured by police desiring a conviction to "look good", people making mistaken identifications, people convicted by science that turned out to be wrong and lab tests that were wrong or faked.

Most amazing, it seems the very same people who maintain that the government can't feed people, can't plan anything, can't look to the future, will do ANYTHING to protect itself, SOMEHOW, WILL NOT abuse the power to execute people, people who may be in the way, questioning the government's power, policies or legitimacy.

This contradictory attitude on governmental power makes no sense to me.

 

That is not factually true. because most death row sentences were passed down because of eye witness testimony. and there is always doubt when it comes to such things as eye witness testimony.

We have seen that very recently in the case in Los Angeles of the guys who put Bryan Stow in the hospital. 20 people were witness. and only 1 person was able to identify them. if it was not for other video evidence, and electronic evidence their would be no case against these guys. but we have much stronger evidence then just eye witness and will leave no doubt to who the criminals were.

Again you are going on evidence that comes from hearsay, and not actual evidence. except for possibly the ones who were "Framed" We have a lot of modern technologies that we did not use to have, we also have people that are recording just about everything they see, and that will be used as evidence in criminal trials. I don't support the Death penalty for every case that is eligible for it. just the ones that their is no doubt based on evidence. (DNA, forensics, and electronic) if the case is based solely on eye witness testimony then the persons should get life, not death row.

I think the government should have a lot less power then it has. and I think the death penalty should only be given for the most horrific crimes.

the Death penalty needs to be used as a deterrent to prevent crimes. but with the way it is set up. it is counter productive. because people who have life sentences will admit to murders they did not commit to get placed on death row, where they live in luxury compared to general pop. Also knowing that you most likely won't be executed but will die of natural causes is not a very good deterrent either. we need to look at case by case and only choose the cases that their is overwhelming evidence of guilt, and most horrific of cases. and not give them 25 plus years to get all their appeals. it needs to be much shorter less then 10 years would start making it a deterrent and not a get out of general pop free card.

 

The point is: the person who's dead isn't coming back anytime soon. Beating, flogging or killing the perp isn't going to bring them back to life; In our society, certain elements are so hell bent on killing someone if they can find a justification in their minds no matter how flimsy the pretext is.

 

You're missing the part where the caged monster (i.e. child murderer that is guilty beyond doubt), happened to be next in line for that liver transplant ahead of your wife.

Bee

 

No if we did it my way...we wouldn't be changing from the system we had now. Stop being drama queens about this, it's like getting ganged up on by a bunch of overly emotional preteen girls going to a Justin Bieber concert.....

Innocent until proven guilty - if they are on death row then clearly they have been found guilty. What more would you ask for? Do you want to pay for the serial killers, child rapists, and terrorists of the world to live comfortably in prison.3 square meals a day.......living off your tax dime...just because there's a marginal .5% chance that they didn't do the crime? I don't play that game.

Here's a suggestion: go do something about the system you hate instead of bagging on everyone who comes in here with a different opinion.....

 

If that ,5% chance was YOU, I suspect you would feel quite differently.

But we don't need to worry about that minuscule number making for a difficult ethical decision!

The REAL figure of executions in error is more like 30%, even nowadays, which makes it a no-brainer (even if the error rate is 5%). You don't do executions when a significant number of your victims will be innocent. And keeping them in jail for life is cheaper AND more cruel! What more could you ask for?

 

And the Kidnap, torture, raping and murder of an innocent child is not horrible and brutal?
Can you even imagine the mental terror a child goes through in these circumstances?

 

That's more then the exception to the rule and you know it. Your just looking for an excuse to commit legal murder.

 

The Death Penalty: Saving Innocent Lives
Dudley Sharp

Innocence

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

2) Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn..._capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands

3) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

4) "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/1...eception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

5) The 130 (now 13 death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

6) Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...ean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

7) "At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx

"Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron Todd Willingham.aspx

Deterrence

Of course the death penalty deters.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

1) 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm


2) "Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...th-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

3) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

4) This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
"Death Penalty and Deterrence"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/0...rmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx

5) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

Of course the death penalty deters. A review of the debate.
Dudley Sharp

1) Anti death penalty folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death penalty deters. Untrue. It is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some - there is no exception. It is the burden of death penalty opponents to prove that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot.

2) There have been 27 recent studies finding for death penalty deterrence. A few of those have been criticized. The criticism has, itself been rebutted and/or the criticism doesn't negate no. 1 or nos. 3-10.

3) No deterrence study finds that the death penalty deters none. They cannot. Anti death penalty columnists Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune states, "No one argues that the death penaly deters none." Yes, some do, But Zorn is correct, the issue is not "Does the death penalty deter?". It does. The only issue is to what degreee.

4) About 99% of those murderers who are subject to the death penalty do everything they can to receive a lesser sentence, in pre trial, plea bargains, trial, in appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise. Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course.

5) There are a number of known cases of individual deterrence, those potential murderers who have stated that they were prevented from committing murder because of their fear of the death penalty. Individual deterrence exists.

6) General deterrence exists because individual deterrence cannot exist without it.

7) Even the dean of anti death penalty academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death penalty deters .. . but he doesn't believe it deters more than a life sentence. Nos. 4-6 and 10 provide anecdotal and rational evidence that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than a life sentence. In addition, the 27 studies finding for deterrence, find that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence.

All criminal sanctions deter. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen if we ended all criminal sanctions? No rational person has any doubt. Some would have us, irrationally, believe that the most severe sanction, execution, is the only sanction which doesn't deter.

9) If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared more innocent lives. If we don't execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths.

10) Overwhelmingly, people prefer life over death and fear death more than life.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science

Sincerely, Dudley Sharp

 

It's premeditated cold-blooded killing by the State, which makes the State no better that the person it's execution-homiciding.

 

Yes, but the State putting humans in death chambers and killing them is what Nazi Germany did.

 

Yes, seeing as how you're asking.

Prison is comfortable?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWxpQ87C4t4"]Torture in American prisons - YouTube[/ame]

Torture in American prisons


I ask that all convicteds be kept alive.

Just because someone is found guilty doesn't mean they are guilty.

 

The Nazis executed 13 million innocent people because of their race, creed, religion or political leanings.

What is being discussed in this forum is the execution of criminals guilty of severe crimes, such as those Nazis who assisted in murdering those 13 million.

If you can't tell the difference between those two acts and the moral foundations behind them, please think a little bit more deeply.

 

Nice post Dudley. Not a tough call for me either.

 

Moral/Ethical Support for the Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp

It appears that the majority populations of all countries support the death penalty for some crimes. (1)

They find the death penalty moral and just.

The foundation for the moral/ethical support of the death penalty is much more convincing than for its opposition.

"Moral/ethical Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

Christianity and the death penalty
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#F.Christianity

Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty,
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/1...references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx

OTHER MORAL CONSIDERATIONS

"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

"Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...y-distinct-moral-differences--new-mexico.aspx

"Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html


In addition, innocents are better protected with the death penalty.

The Death Penalty: Saving Innocent Lives

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty?Unlikely.

1) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

2) Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn..._capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

3) "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/1...eception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

4) The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

5) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

6) Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...ean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

7) "At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx

"Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron Todd Willingham.aspx
Deterrence

Of course the death penalty deters.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

1) 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

2) "Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...th-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

3) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

4) This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
"Death Penalty and Deterrence"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/0...rmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx

5) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

FOOTNOTE
"Death Penalty Support Remains Very High: USA & The World"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-polls-support-remains.html

 

The death penalty system is very different today than it was then. Should that make a difference for you? Of course.

Today, in the US, only those over 18 are subject to execution, the pre trial preparation would likely take 1 year, jury selection would likley last 2-3 weeks, as would the trial, and appeals would last, on average, 10 years prior to execution and forensics, as well as every other investgative area are far superior today.

 

I used to be anti death penalty.

 

That is wildly incorrect, at least in the US.

There are no known innocents executed in the US, at least since the 1930's.

My guesstimate is that is a period of about 3000 executions ( about 1200 since 1973).

So either 5% or 30% are both absurd.

However, with a murderer recidivism rate of about 3.9%, since 1973, in the US, we have allowed murderers to murder, again, resulting in about 28,000 innocents murdered by those who had murdered before.

 

I thought deeply.
Nazis, the State, convicted people of being enemies of the state for several different reasons...and put them in death chambers and killed them.

ie: the State killing convicteds in cold blood.

Simple.

 

Only because the murderers were allowed out of prison.

 

'Known' being the operative word.

1200 people killed in cold blood by the State in death chambers since 1973?

A total outrage!
Human rights abuse.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0412090169dec09,0,1173806.story

Man executed on disproved forensics

Fire that killed his 3 children could have been accidental


CORSICANA, Texas— Strapped to a gurney in Texas' death chamber earlier this year, just moments from his execution for setting a fire that killed his three daughters, Cameron Todd Willingham declared his innocence one last time.

"I am an innocent man, convicted of a crime I did not commit," Willingham said angrily. "I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do."

While Texas authorities dismissed his protests, a Tribune investigation of his case shows that Willingham was prosecuted and convicted based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. According to four fire experts consulted by the Tribune, the original investigation was flawed and it is even possible the fire was accidental.

Before Willingham died by lethal injection on Feb. 17, Texas judges and Gov. Rick Perry turned aside a report from a prominent fire scientist questioning the conviction.

 

I am Pro life and that is for the unborn and born. The death penalty is inconsistant with the teachings of Christ.