why not death penalty?

[Biggles]

Not so.

If I'm arrested with a slap on the wrist, I was still arrested yet I might arbitrarily break my foot off in someone's ass without a second thought.......again.

I agree that following arrest more should happen than a mere tickle (unless administered by Mr Jackson - allegedly). However, one could have the situation as pertained in the UK in the 18th century where there were in the region of 120 capital offences but surprisingly few executions because they either couldn't catch the villians or juries refused to convict them (deeming hanging a bit harsh for sheep fondling).

[bigboab]

I have just read a really long article on this subject. It ends that we have only three choices:

1) Not to have the death penalty and the genuine problems it causes and continue to accept the relatively high levels of murder and other serious crimes that we presently have.

2) Re-introduce capital punishment for just the "worst" murderers which would at least be some retribution for the terrible crimes they have committed and would permanently incapacitate them. It would also save a small amount of money each year which could, perhaps, be spent on the more genuinely needy. This option is unlikely to reduce crime levels.

3) Re-introduce the death penalty and see a corresponding drop in serious crime whilst accepting that there will be a lot of human misery caused to the innocent families of criminals and that there will be the occasional, if inevitable, mistakes.

They way to check as to whether it is a deterrent or not is to look at murder statistics in a country that has abolished capital punishment. Compare them to when they had capital punishment and allow for the various changes in health care, divorce rate etc.

[JPaul]

JPaul-

As re your statement about deterrence:

How would one go about gathering statistical evidence about how many people do not commit murder due to fear of being put to death themselves?

I think this begs your conclusion.

I say again, whether it is a deterrent, whether the innocent are executed is not the point. Tho' those reasons in and of themselves would be enough to abolish the death sentence. The point is that it is wrong and untenable.

However to address your point, inane as it is. There are various ways of achieving this, including but not limited to :

1. Take a society which had a death sentence then removed it. Compare the levels of crimes which may have resulted in a death sentence. Has there been an increase, a decrease or neither.

2. See above but reverse it, bring the death sentence in, what changes are observed.

3. Compare societies which are otherwise broadly similar but one has the death sentence, see which one has the higher level of relevant crime, if any.

I however believe that it is up to those who advocate killing people to prove that it has this alleged deterrent effect.

However the honest answer is that the death sentence is societal revenge. I wish no part of that.

[fkdup74]

@ vid & Busy -
I should have expanded on my post that the system needs tweaking,
I meant the entire judicial system
so, as vid said, it can proven without a doubt, period
as it is, I am certain that innocents go to prison,
and yes I had heard of that case where the verdict was overturned many years later

with modern forensics, it should be easier to determine a verdict, without error
.....you would think....

but anyway, heres a good question....
what of uncontested murder charges? confessions?
should they hold the right to a plea or an appeal for a lesser sentence?
I mean, confessions can be coerced.....
hmmm...maybe another thread for that one....
sorry 'bout teh cawkjackin of yer thread vid,
but you opened a can of worms with this one

[vidcc]

I've come to the conclusion that, if life in prison actually (wonder of wonders) meant life in prison; no parole-not no way-not no how, it could, if properly managed, be as agonizing as I want it to be.

I arrived at this conclusion after long consideration of the extraordinary legal costs of execution represented by the appeals process (it currently takes, on average, about 11 years to carry out the death sentence), which make the costs of life imprisonment a relative bargain, fiscally.

Just to make sure I'm clear on this , you are now for substituting the death penalty with life without parole across the board? Assuming this is the case then you have answered satisfactorily

Bombing an abortion clinic, while the act of a madman, has at least a rationale, or purpose, twisted though it might be.

I think that anything can have a rationale, or purpose if it's allowed to be twisted

[vidcc]

Actually, no.

I would say I favor the death penalty in cases of an outright admission of horrible guilt,

Then how come you think it right in this case that death is off the table if he makes "an outright admission of horrible guilt"....pleads guilty.


I appreciate coercion or mental factors in such cases, but then we have executed people suffering these more than once.

Edit: one has to assume that this case does have hard evidence and not just a confession

[Busyman]

I say again, whether it is a deterrent, whether the innocent are executed is not the point. Tho' those reasons in and of themselves would be enough to abolish the death sentence. The point is that it is wrong and untenable.

However to address your point, inane as it is. There are various ways of achieving this, including but not limited to :

1. Take a society which had a death sentence then removed it. Compare the levels of crimes which may have resulted in a death sentence. Has there been an increase, a decrease or neither.

2. See above but reverse it, bring the death sentence in, what changes are observed.

3. Compare societies which are otherwise broadly similar but one has the death sentence, see which one has the higher level of relevant crime, if any.

I however believe that it is up to those who advocate killing people to prove that it has this alleged deterrent effect.

However the honest answer is that the death sentence is societal revenge. I wish no part of that.

Is the wrath of God a deterrent?

If so or if not, give me a measurement supporting it.

[vidcc]

j2-

perhaps it's lack of sleep or increased noise and attention distractions but your response isn't clear to me.

I think, in this specific case, that he should be sentenced to life

you then said this

I've come to the conclusion that, if life in prison actually (wonder of wonders) meant life in prison; no parole-not no way-not no how, it could, if properly managed, be as agonizing as I want it to be.

I arrived at this conclusion after long consideration of the extraordinary legal costs of execution represented by the appeals process (it currently takes, on average, about 11 years to carry out the death sentence), which make the costs of life imprisonment a relative bargain, fiscally.

to me this means you see it as a fiscal reason and i assumed that if it is fiscally prudent for one it must be for all.

Then you said that your view has nothing to do with the abortion issue (i accept that) and said that the plea bargain was "disgusting" and talked about the olympics (your personal connection) saying that he was just a "domestic terrorist"

so i am still unsure as to why you feel this case is different from any other in deserving death

[hobbes]

Vidcc,

As I said before, isn't understanding the psychology of the jurors a logical explanation for avoiding the death penalty.

They want a conviction they can hang their hats on.

No big conspiracy, just legistics meets idealism.

[vidcc]

Vidcc,

As I said before, isn't understanding the psychology of the jurors a logical explanation for avoiding the death penalty.

They want a conviction they can hang their hats on.

No big conspiracy, just legistics meets idealism.

I understand that they may not think a jury would hand out a death sentence, but why would that stop them from trying? The jury will find guilty or innocent then recommend the sentence... why limit that recommendation.