For clear cut cases, I support Capital Punishment. I don't see why the tax payer should fund incarceration costs, it's also a clear message to would be murderers, and it reduces the number of dregs in society. For example - https://youtube.com/shorts/oHjHhSonX18?si=dew_RbYjVg7F3EqR
Those in favor of Capitol Punishment want to "prevent" the deaths of victims. Preventing crime means focusing on what it does to victims, not giving comfort to what some view as the "oppressed"......but that is the way the culture has gone for some time now. We see the results, more crime.
Some people who commit heinous murders who hold little value for human life, having no remorse and who would do it again given the chance-- need to be executed. Giving such people "life" in prison is not valuing any lives of the other inmates or prison guards. I have had relatives who are and some who have spent time in prison. Most inmates don't qualify for the death penalty and have a chance for a reformed life...either in prison if their crime called for life, or outside if they are released. Their lives and the prison guards lives should be valued and not put at undue risk..
Ending the lives of murderers ( and child molesters) is a near perfect way to prevent crimes. It is simple. Dead criminals cannot repeat their criminal activity.
I don't for several reasons, the most telling being what a former US Attorney said to me-He said "some people ought to be fried, but I don't think the government should have the power to fry people". and sometimes juries and judges get it wrong. It also doesn't deter others and it actually costs the tax payers more than LWOP. however, I have no issue with intended victims having the right and means to use force, including lethal force, against those who try to commit VIOLENT crimes against them.
I would be fine without it except in those cases where the convict is so dangerous that he would be a constant threat to guards/staff or the crime was so depraved that even another murderer would say "WTF, son!" As a whole I think society is moving in the right direction on that. It seems to me that a lot of people are now getting less than life in prison that a generation ago would have been a guaranteed electric chair.
I strenuously oppose the death penalty for crimes that do not kill the victim because if that is the law, then there is absolutely no reason for the criminal to spare the life of the victim (AKA a witness). Read the book THE ONION FIELD for edification
OH I have attended and even tried cases where what we thought was CLEAR CUT, the juries didn't agree or the judge didn't. since all criminal convictions require PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, prosecutors will claim EVERY conviction is clear cut
As in the case per my link. Also as in the case of Lee Rigby where the two guys stood there, chopped off Lee's head infront of bystanders, the cops turned up and arrested them as they were stood there with the bloody knives. If you can't get a more clear cut case than that, then roger me with a stiff stick.
I'm opposed to the govt having the bureaucratic authority to kill people who are not an immediate threat. And to be clear, people incarcerated securely in prison are not an immediate threat. HOWEVER I'm also opposed to society being obligated to house, feed and care for people who can never again benefit society due to their own personal choices. I chose 'on the fence' because I support the eager search for a third option. 'For profit' prisons only incentivize the system to seek more profits (more prisoners) so that's not the answer either. A 'Dept of Rehabilitations' instead of a 'Dept of Corrections' would be a step in the right direction. As for those who are flat out unrehabilitatible (and they do exist), I am admittedly out of good ideas. An isolated community where they can thrive or fail on their own among other of their 'kind' with no chance of rejoining peaceful society would be ideal. But logistically and geographically speaking, that is not currently plausible. In my 'perfect world' these people are all eventually killed off by their intended victims defending themselves. But of course there is no perfect world.
If you kill people you will inevitably kill innocent people. If you lock them up and the conviction is wrong, you can release them. If you kill them, there's no point in digging them up. This might be you or yours on the wrong end of human error.
What does punishment mean to you? Supporting them for life and financing their appeals knowing that some get out to commit heinous crimes? Capitol punishment is not about vengeance, it is about removing evil doers from the earth. Believe it or not, it is also a deterrent that children become aware of as they develop to make right choices. In other words....."we are dead serious about those that commit heinous crimes."
So you seem to think juries of peers and judges are unable to make right decisions especially when there are witnesses or overwhelming evidence? Well then we should just do away with all courts and juries.
Nope never. Even if we collectively decide that someone does not deserve to live, that does not mean our govt has the right to kill. Govt cannot kill a man in restraints and handcuffs and surrounded by cement walls, without doing anything but killing a defenseless man. That kind of thing makes us uncomfortably close morally to the man we just sentenced for murder. Can't help noticing that most of the civilized world is somehow managing to run their penal and justice systems without planning and executing people. Its actually pretty normal in modern civilized countries not to kill their worst criminals.
Here, read about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion_Field Two cops kidnapped one was killed, the other escaped The killing occurred primarily because Powell assumed that the kidnapping of the officers alone already constituted a capital crime under the state's Little Lindbergh Law. However, Powell's interpretation was incorrect. Under the Little Lindbergh Law at that time, kidnapping became a capital crime only if the victim were harmed or if a ransom were demanded. Today, kidnapping in California is punishable by life imprisonment, either with or without the possibility of parole, depending on the circumstances.[4]
Well, if you look at what some of the juries in DC have been doing lately, it does kinda call into question their objectivity. I wouldn't wanna be put on trial for defending myself with a firearm in a majority blue jurisdiction. I'd likely get put away for murder.
I theoretically support it, but prefer the situation where they only use it for the very worst offenses, worse than ordinary murder. I'm not sure if I trust the system to properly apply it only in cases where it is warranted and deserved, and in cases where we know the person is guilty with complete certainty, and where the killing was completely cold-blooded with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. (For example, personally I probably would not hand out the death penalty to a robber who shot someone only after they pulled out a gun on them. But I would hand out the death penalty to a robber who clearly and intentionally shot the person he was robbing even though that person did everything the robber asked)
Capital punishment generally doesn't save money (and often costs a lot more) and even if it did, it could only ever reasonably apply to a tiny proportion of convicted criminals. There is also clear evidence that it provides no specific deterrent effect for those kinds of offences. Most murders are either crimes of passion or insanity rather than being premediated, so direct deterrent isn't usually a factor. If you really want to reduce prison costs, reduce the "dregs" of society and deter crime, you'd be arguably better off applying capital punishment to white collar crime. Of course, an actually better way to address all of these problems is much better social interventions, especially before individuals have committed any serious offences and better (any!) rehabilitation and support to prevent minor offenders falling in to the spiral of criminality that so many do. The main issue with those kind of approaches is that it doesn't give the blood thirsty public the satisfaction of knowing "bad" people are being killed for them. None of use are as different from those "dregs" as we might like to imagine.
Most people who take the trouble to reply to these debates have a strong opinion and either support the death penalty or completely oppose it. I don't seem to see many perspectives expressing a middle ground, or reluctant cautious approval only in certain sorts of situations. It's human psychology to want to oversimplify an issue and view things in terms of black and white, that something is either 'good' or 'bad'. This is one of those issues where I feel that if there is a balance of supporters on either side, the government is more likely to implement a fair and reasonable solution, involving some compromise, where the death penalty does exist but they exercise a lot of reluctance in implementing it, and save it for the very worst rare cases, where practically no one doubts that person should get it. Also, by saving the death penalty for the very worst heinous crimes, there's always the advantage that it creates some incentive for a criminal who has committed murder not to do something worse. Maybe it will help some of them to decide to hold on to some sense of decency and not cross a certain line.
