First off, let me just say that I believe in the death penalty 100%. I think it is philosophically and morally justified to execute anyone who has murdered another human being. There are few mitigating circumstances that excuse this behavior. When someone does something wrong, they have to make up for it completely. If a person take a life, the only way to make up for it is to forfeit theirs. However, we have one major problem: application. People have, and will, be executed even though they are innocent of the crime. We may never know, 100%, if someone has or has not committed the crime of murder. There is no way to make up for the mistake, there is no way to bring a person back to life. Unless we can come up with a system that almost always guarantees a fair trial with a correct verdict, I don't think it is right to put innocent people at risk. Right now, though, I am not convinced that our system is accurate enough to make me comfortable with execution. If we could get it to 90-99% accuracy, I would be fine. But it looks abit more like 60-70% accuracy at this point.
22 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Also, it's actually more expensive to execute someone in the United States than to support them for the rest of their life- it's ridiculously impractical, and why waste more resources?
18 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
"People have, and will, be executed even though they are innocent of the crime."- there is no evidence of anyone ever being wrongfully executed in the United States. "Unless we can come up with a system that almost always guarantees a fair trial with a correct verdict, I don't think it is right to put innocent people at risk."- ill answer this with another quote: "if government functioned only when the possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all." If its not right to put innocent people at risk, then why are people allowed to drive?
20 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
I assume in what follows that we, the country or the state, execute only for the crime of murder, though many capital punishment adherents would use it for other crimes, such as child rape, treason, arson, robbery and even fraud. I say this: We show we are better than the muder convict by not executing him/her. What does this mean? Well, the murderer (if he/she is truly guilty - a separate reason to be anti death penalty is that sometimes there has been a miscarriage of justice and the convict is innocent!) has shown no mercy by killing someone. If we, that is, the country or the state, extracts an eye for an eye (sometimes on a spurious religious basis) by executing the murder convict we surrender the moral high ground and lower ourselves to the morally bankrupt level of the murder convict. We make ourselves less by doing the same as the murder convict - that is, not valuing a human life. I call for an end to the death penalty in the USA (it has happened already in Europe). It is barbaric for the above moral reason i have outlined. Long prison sentences are the answer.
5 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
I assume in what follows that we, the country or the state, execute only for the crime of murder, though many capital punishment adherents would use it for other crimes, such as child rape, treason, arson, robbery and even fraud.
5 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
Disclaimer: This is a philosophy I am trying out. I have no guarantees that it is correct. Justice in terms of punishment is something that humans have decided is necessary, but it's just a concept. A murderer being killed doesn't change what happened, it just satisfies people's need for revenge, and fulfills our society's concept of "justice". But what really happened? One person died, then another person died. That's it. Of course, we have guaranteed that the second person can't hurt anyone else anymore, but we can come close to guaranteeing that with a very high security prison. To me, the system's job is one thing: To prevent a similar crime from happening again, not to fulfill a concept that we have invented. Again, this is just a theory of mine. I may or may not believe it myself. But it kind of makes sense to me.
19 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Justice is only a concept, but it's an important one. Punishing those who do evil creates a deterrent and solidifies the values that keep people behaving properly. It's one of the main things that allows us to function as a society.
17 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
I agree, but I guess my questions are: 1. Does the death penalty deter evil more than life in prison? and 2. Is it wrong to kill someone in the name of a concept we invented?
16 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
The death penalty has no place in modern society. It is a primitive, ineffective system based on emotion rather than logic. 1- Cost - It costs way more to put someone to death than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives. About 10 times as much. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty 2- Morality - If it's not acceptable for people to kill people, what makes it ok for the government to kill people? The state-sanctioned killing of a country's own citizens is a hallmark of third world nations. State run executions are done in the interest of political gain (usually occurs in dictatorships) or emotional fulfillment (such is the case in America). Either way, nothing is undone with the killing of a prisoner. To quote Gandhi: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" 3- Deterrence - The fear of death doesn't deter anymore crime than the fear of life imprisonment does. The people who commit crimes that deserve such heavy punishments don't think about the consequences. If they did, then they probably wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. Also, the death penalty in the US isn't a painful, public spectacle. The criminals have no shame or pain to fear. The death penalty may have deterred crime in the 17 or 1800's, but it is simply out of place in modern society. 4- Accuracy - No justice system is perfect, so it is unwise to assign punishments that cannot be reversed. With life in imprisonment, judicial mistakes can be rectified. With death they cannot
19 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Cost - Includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs. Without the trials and appeals, death penalty cases would be much cheaper than confining inmates for the rest of their lives. Morality - When people kill people is usually isn't justifiable. When the government makes the decision it is based on evidence, logic and non-bias. Even if a person does kill another person justifiably it isn't their job to do it. In the same way it's not their job to arrest people, bank people's money, act as a defence lawyer etc. it is not their job to murder even in a logically, morally, calculated way. They should leave that to the government to make the decision and actions. Deterrence - The fear of death doesn't deter because there isn't a fear of death.. there isn't even death. Read the statistics on the website you provided and you'll find that less than 5% of criminals get executed. With federal cases averages to about 27%. People know they aren't very likely to be put to death because they are able to appeal, reappeal, rereappeal, rerereappeal, rererereappeal, rererererereappeal and at worst they'll be put on death row but never executed. The problem with the death penalty doesn't lie with the death penalty itself but how it is carried out. It should not be so easy to defeat and be appealed against. For something that's meant to be tough love.. it doesn't really give it. Not only would it reduce costs.. it would also increase the deterrence.
18 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
Cost- "Without the trials and appeals, death penalty cases would be much cheaper than confining inmates for the rest of their lives." So are you saying that in order to prevent costs we should just kill people without trials or appeals? The fact that life sentences cost less is due to the fact that they are treated no differently than the general prison population and have limited appeals (this is because while the convicted person is alive, the possibility of a wrongful incarceration can be rectified, whereas death sentences cannot.). The whole point of unlimited appeals is to try to explore all possible evidence before an irreversible decision is made. If the death penalty were simply abolished, there would be no endless chain of appeals and therefore cost would decrease. Morality - "When the government makes the decision it is based on evidence, logic and non-bias." The fact that the death penalty is considered makes the government inherently illogical in this aspect. There is no gain to be had by killing a person besides emotional satisfaction. No crimes are undone and there is no punishment or hope of redemption for the convicted. The government's job is not to satisfy the feelings of its people by killing the citizens many people would consider to be "bad." Deterrence - "The fear of death doesn't deter because there isn't a fear of death.. there isn't even death." Since there is no fear of death as you say, why bother having a death penalty? The fact that there are limitless appeals brings us back to a first argument. You need to have unlimited appeals to make sure that the person who you are executing is the right person. The ability to appeal is very important in death penalty cases, and their existence is not a legitimate way to excuse the ineffectiveness of a death penalty system.
11 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Unlimited appeals only waste time and money. It's basically swing and a miss. Keep swinging and you'll hit something which may alter the minds of the judge and jury - doesn't necesserily mean they're innocent. It's like begging a girl day in and day out to go out with her. Eventually she'll say yes. I've got nothing against appeals. It's the number of appeals that creates an inefficient system. The fact that the death penalty is considered makes the government inherently illogical in this aspect. There is no gain to be had by killing a person besides emotional satisfaction. No crimes are undone and there is no punishment or hope of redemption for the convicted. The government's job is not to satisfy the feelings of its people by killing the citizens many people would consider to be "bad." LOL?? What kind of bullshit are you talking about? LACK of death penalty is the exact same thing. Infact in todays western world where the majority of people are against death penalties (I think) it's appeasing the citizens by not executing. Life sentences are based on emotions about life and what not. Capital punishment vs Life sentences Kills the guilty vs. MAY, POSSIBLY kill the innocent Deters crime vs. .......no/very limited deterrence on crime Cheap to uphold vs. Expensive to keep a person alive for the rest of their lives. ETC. ETC. Since there is no fear of death as you say, why bother having a death penalty? The fact that there are limitless appeals brings us back to a first argument. You need to have unlimited appeals to make sure that the person who you are executing is the right person. The ability to appeal is very important in death penalty cases, and their existence is not a legitimate way to excuse the ineffectiveness of a death penalty system. Read what I said. There would be a fear of death.. if there was death. But because nobody is actually executed.. people aren't afraid. IF they WERE executed then they WOULD be afraid. I hope you actually read the link you posted. I hope you read about trials of capital punishment. The trials do NOT the majority of the time clear the guilty to innocent. It plays on people's feelings that this man should not be put on death row due to so and so. NOT because of the reasons you have stated. Look at countries around the world outside of America where the death penalty is more commonly used and see what their society is like. Singapore for example has very little drugs because of its tough stance on it. If countries like America and UK were tough on crime, it would be deterred.. but they're soft and THAT is why crime is so much higher. Appealing against death row plays on feelings.
11 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
Appeals - "Unlimited appeals only waste time and money. It's basically swing and a miss. Keep swinging and you'll hit something which may alter the minds of the judge and jury - doesn't necesserily mean they're innocent." Actually, if you know how the court system works, when the judge and jury say you are innocent, it means that the government recognizes your innocence and would therefore have no right to kill you. What you are actually criticizing is the success of a free appeals system and saying that it would have been better to kill an innocent man because that would have been cheaper and made a better point. Emotional appeasement Had you the capacity to understand the argument I was making, you may have answered it better than: "LOL?? What kind of bullshit are you talking about?" I'll make a chart like you did because apparently that's an easy way for you to understand things. Capital punishment vs life in prison -may permanently kill the innocent vs possibility of wrongful incarceration with ability for rectification -convict has no chance for redemption vs convict has opportunity to change -convict is suffers for about 10 years vs convict suffers for 20-30 years -cost 10 times as much per inmate vs lower cost of one regular inmate -provides biblical "eye for an eye" justice vs punishment in a humane and civilized manner -ineffective deterrent (Look at the numbers, and you will see that states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than those who do. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2008) ) vs moderate deterrence Fear of death- "There would be a fear of death.. if there was death. But because nobody is actually executed.. people aren't afraid. IF they WERE executed then they WOULD be afraid." In order to have a justice system be as fair as possible while incorporating a death penalty system, a lengthy appeals system is needed. You cannot allow your government to kill its own citizens just to prove a point to other possible criminals. Your government needs to spend the time and money going through every bit of evidence to make sure that the decision it makes is justified. Other countries have death penalty systems that are more effective because their citizens don't have the luxury of appeals, countries like China and Iran. Your government shouldn't proceed to end a person's life without adequate investigation because it simply didn't fit into the budget, or thought your life was expendable anyway. The sort of extreme punishment you are advocating may be effective in some places where they flog you for spitting gum on a sidewalk, but its certainly not fair, and certainly not constitutional. For example, I'm certain speeding would stop if people had their fingers cut off instead of being ticketed for violations, but that's definitely not a society I'd like to live in.
11 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Actually, if you know how the court system works, when the judge and jury say you are innocent, it means that the government recognizes your innocence and would therefore have no right to kill you. What you are actually criticizing is the success of a free appeals system and saying that it would have been better to kill an innocent man because that would have been cheaper and made a better point. No, no and nope. How many innocent people have been executed..? How many appeals did they have? How many people on trial for deathrow have been proved innocent? a VERY LOW number. MOST of these cases get turned to life sentences. The defendents actually plead guilty so that they're put on life sentences instead of deathrow. I'm all for appeals used to prove innocence. That's not the case I'm afraid. Appeals are used to lessen their sentences. Your chart clearly states that life sentences are for emotional appeasement. I just want to get that out of the way. Your table is bullshit. Only the top 2 hold any weight and that's for a soft stance against crime. In order to have a justice system be as fair as possible etc. Haven't you just proved my point with deterrence? the LUXURY of appeals lowers the deterrence. thought your life was expendable anyway. See, this is where our views are different. I'll put it differently - Sacrifices must be made. I am against taking a person's life for the wrong reasons especially innocent, but for the right reason lives should be taken. Innocent lives MAY (and probably WILL) get taken but that's better than living in a world where justice doesn't prevail. definitely not a society I'd like to live in. I know. I would prefer to live in a society where no death penalty was handed out cause there was no crime. I choose the lesser of two evils.
10 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
I think its indisputable that the only justification for taking a life is to save a life. The death penalty is sometimes claimed to save lives through deterrence. However, with life in prison or pretty much any other severe sentence, the benefit to a murderer of killing someone is already far outweighed by the cost. Therefore, murderers are beyond rational cost/benefit calculation and adding to the cost will not create further deterrence. Thus, it has been demonstrated that the death penalty is not justified.
15 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
In judicial administration, there are basically three types of punishments awarded to people who have committed crimes: the first is what are known as "reformative " punishments, in which the purpose of the punishment is to enable the criminal to reform himself. Punishments here would be in the form of community service,jail sentence etc..; the second is what are known as retributive , in which the punishment is in the form of public lashing, cutting off hands or legs etc., which is expected to work as a revenge and should satisfy the person against whom the crime is perpetrated; the third is what is known as "deterrent" punishment, whereby the object of the punishment is to deter any other person from committing similar crimes. Death penalty is usually a deterrent punishment, and it can be argued that many would-be criminals would be deterred from committing the crime if they know the penalty that would meet them is their death. Whether death penalty should be available as an option in a judicial system or not, depends upon the sensitivity of the society to the criminal acts. If some people in that society feel it is "worth it " to commit a crime, because they can serve some term in prison and come back into the society, then it may be necessary to put the fear of life ( death sentence ) into such people by showing that others who have done such crimes have been put to death. The question of whether death sentence should be allowed to continue or not, is therefore dependent upon the society and in general a society that has evolved as a "civilized" society would not need such punishments. America, has no doubt evolved as a civilized society, but it has terrible enemies who would work from within its society and this may be a reason for wanting to continue death penalty. But then, by awarding death penalty to such people, you make martyrs of them. Therefore life sentence would also serve as a better deterrent in such cases. So death penalty should be banned.
20 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
|
I'm from Australia, and too often I've had to witness murderers and rapists being released onto the streets. In my opinion, those who perform those acts of their own free will deserve to die. It's not eye for an eye. It's to protect all other eyes. I also believe child-bashers and animal-bashers should receive a death penalty. I have met too many victims...and lost many friends, I have no sympathy for monsters
19 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
If someone is bad enough to be considered for the death penalty then they must have had sure evidence that they are guilty if they are then they shouldn't deserve the right to live among people they could kill
18 days ago | Tagged As: Put'em in the ground
Why would you prefer people to be killed rather than jailed away from society so that their harm is neutralised?
17 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
It puts a lot of strain on the prison systems and they aren't always held there like they should be. Execution makes more financial sense if it's done correctly.
5 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
It's already been proven that the costs to try & convict a death penalty case far & away costs more than trying & convicting a life without parole case (including the money that it takes to house the prisoner afterwards).
2 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
That is partially correct. But what is not being accounted for is the long-term strain placed on prison facilities. When that factors in, execution is much more cost effective. That's the problem with the current system. It needs to be streemlined to accomodate execution more efficiently and accurately.
23hrs 33mins ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
Many, many people have already been exonerated AFTER being convicted of a capital crime. Just because the prosecution says that you are guilty doesn't make it so.
17 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Those instances are EXTREMELY rare. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than being falsely convicted.
3 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
You are WAY overstating your case here. There have been many people convicted of crimes that they didn't actually commit (including capital crimes).
2 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
As have there been many people struck by lightning. And compared to the ammount of falsly convicted people, the lightning strikes win by a longshot. It not an overstatement it's a FACT. look it up.
23hrs 28mins ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
iv heard a arrangement of points being said on the side of wanting them to live. such as it cost more?!?!? are you crazy, maybe if you use top secret unknowing area 51 stuff for every death sentence to kill them. but these sickos who liberals say "o he did not mean to decapitate the little girl then hide it in his closet" or "well just because he killed a person out of anger dose not mean we must kill back in anger" these people who defend murders make me sick. it is more expensive to pay for the prison fine or the mental hospital find for these criminals to get the easy way out, and to watch them end up doing the crime again. not only are we bringing justice to these wrong doers, we are protecting others from future crimes they may do. i guarantee you if the shooter at fort hood lived, you would hear every left wing nut job in your community praise him as a hero and say he was just in his acts. yes are Court system is pretty missed up. but it dose not stop the act of bringing justice to some one who commits murder, i mean its pretty obvious if they did the crime or not, outside witnesses can tell you that most of the time, and as for accidental death crimes, we have protection for people who end up in theses unfortunate situations, we don't just kill every person charged with murder.
10 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
Pro-American thoughts - Enforce the death penalty and do not allow it to be disputed as easily. Anti-American thoughts - Ban the death penalty altogether so that convicts get more rights and America takes one step closer to hell. All in all I'm for the death penalty. The reason it is not such a strong deterrent is because it is so easily disputed. If it was used more liberally then it would be a LOT stronger as a deterrent. Giving people life sentences is worse than killing them. Economically, morally, ethically etc unless ofcourse there's a strong reason for it. Innocent people will be put to the death penalty.. and even though I don't want this.. it is for the greater good.
19 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
"Anti-American thoughts - Ban the death penalty altogether so that convicts get more rights and America takes one step closer to hell." Wow, calling something "Anti-American" without any direct evidence is a pretty weak "argument". "Giving people life sentences is worse than killing them. Economically, morally, ethically etc unless ofcourse there's a strong reason for it." Life without parole costs the justice system WAAAY less than death penalty cases do. I agree that having to live with your horrible crime for life without the possibility of parole is horrendous, but I have little sympathy for those that are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't think that all liberals "love" criminals, because we really don't. "Innocent people will be put to the death penalty.. and even though I don't want this.. it is for the greater good." Who's "greater good"???
17 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Wow, calling something "Anti-American" without any direct evidence is a pretty weak "argument". Don't take that too seriously dude.... I dunno how to post links to posts.. but I've made a post disputing sirius's post on this debate about how and why death penalty cases are so much more expensive. The reason why killing them is better is not just the economic benefits but also the deterrent it causes. The reason why it's not successful in America is because most of the cases are not given death row and those that are haven't been executed. There's no action behind the words i.e. when a parent tells the kids they'll get beats if they jump on the bed.. and after they jump on the bed they don't get beats.. they'll ignore the threats. "Innocent people will be put to the death penalty.. and even though I don't want this.. it is for the greater good." Who's "greater good"??? Firstly there has been no proof that an Innocent man has ever been placed on death row. Secondly there will be a place and time that somebody innocent will be executed, but you cannot stop the whole system due to one wrong execution. If it is a regular occurance then ofcourse... but in general an anomaly should not be a preventer.
17 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
"I've made a post disputing sirius's post on this debate about how and why death penalty cases are so much more expensive. The reason why killing them is better is not just the economic benefits but also the deterrent it causes." Look, studies have consistently shown that death penalty cases cost the govt. FAR MORE than life without parole cases. "Firstly there has been no proof that an Innocent man has ever been placed on death row." OF COURSE THERE IS...see far below...my goodness! "Secondly there will be a place and time that somebody innocent will be executed, but you cannot stop the whole system due to one wrong execution. If it is a regular occurance then ofcourse" ...which is the whole point! People are regularly put on death row that have been proven innocent eventually.
16 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Look, studies have consistently shown that death penalty cases cost the govt. FAR MORE than life without parole cases. Have you read that post I made to sirius? These studies always take into account the costs of appeals and reappeals and with death row cases there are always tons of them which increases the costs dramatically. OF COURSE THERE IS...see far below...my goodness! Couldn't find anything about that... ...which is the whole point! People are regularly put on death row that have been proven innocent eventually. I doubt it's a regular occurance but it probably does happen more often than it should. But I still think America needs to use deathrow a lot more often. Atleast 1,000 a year :D:D
16 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
"These studies always take into account the costs of appeals and reappeals and with death row cases there are always tons of them which increases the costs dramatically." Duh! That's the point! Taking the death penalty completely off the table SAVES the govt. money in the long-run. "Couldn't find anything about that." You need to unhide all the comments on this side of the argument. I hate how the site automatically hides them. Does anyone know how to change that feature?? "I doubt it's a regular occurance but it probably does happen more often than it should." More than it should?? The studies are very clear that people are routinely convicted of crimes that they never committed, period.
16 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Duh! That's the point! Taking the death penalty completely off the table SAVES the govt. money in the long-run. What needs to be done is reform. There needs to be less appeals. You need to unhide all the comments on this side of the argument. I hate how the site automatically hides them. Does anyone know how to change that feature?? I did, but got low patience so probably missed it. More than it should?? The studies are very clear that people are routinely convicted of crimes that they never committed, period. I would love to see the statistics. What you also miss is a lot of guilty people get let off deathrow.
15 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
"What needs to be done is reform. There needs to be less appeals." Riiiight...less appeals basically equals "guilty until proven innocent", which is NOT what this country was founded on, period. If a conviction is worth it's weight, then it's worthy of further scrutiny of the appeals process. We're talking about a human life here yanno...ugh... "I would love to see the statistics. What you also miss is a lot of guilty people get let off deathrow." LOL...hello?? You make a wild claim like that with absolutely NO support?! Please... As for your "statistics": "DNA Tests Prove Justice Has Failed" "Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, 33, spent nearly half his life in a New York prison for a rape and murder he did not commit. DNA testing cleared Deskovic and he was released Sep. 20 from prison." "In 2004, Ryan Matthew, convicted for the murder of a local convenience store owner in Louisiana, escaped the death penalty after prosecutors dropped all charges on the basis of DNA testing results." "Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented at least 38 executions carried out in the United States in spite of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt since capital punishment was restored in the mid-1970s." "Moreover, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented 123 death-row inmates who, since 1973, have been exonerated and freed before their executions." "The staff of the CWC pioneered the investigation and litigation of wrongful convictions, relying a great deal on DNA testing. Their work proving the innocence of 11 men sitting on death row in the U.S. state of Illinois was a driving force behind former Governor George H. Ryan's decision to suspend executions in Illinois in January, 2001." "The Innocence Project, which worked to free Deskovic, only handles cases where post-conviction DNA tests can yield conclusive proof of innocence. To date, it has helped exonerate 184 people, proving that wrongful convictions are not rare." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/ 0921-08.htm -In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review that found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed." "Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed, Judge Says" "'In the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood,' the judge, Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court in Boston, wrote in a decision allowing a capital case to proceed to trial. He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row based on DNA and other evidence." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/national/12DEAT.html -Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented 38 executions carried out since the mid-1970s where there was compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Another 130 death row inmates were exonerated, instead of executed, between 1973-2008 due to emerging evidence, including DNA analysis. A smaller number of people have been exonerated posthumously. The Death Penalty Information Center estimates for every seven executions, one death row inmate is exonerated. "Innocence and the Death Penalty" http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty BTW, all of this evidence was freely available in this very thread previously, from me.
10 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
It is the perfect punishment for the worst crime. An eye for an eye does not make the whole world blind. It just makes two people blind at a time. ;)
19 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
By killing a murderer, it is not only he who suffers. It is everyone he knows, especially his parents. In this way instead of stopping sufferings, it prolongs them. Can you prove that killing a murderer is beneficial?
Besides the fact that it gets rid of that member of society once and for all (Do we really want to keep Charles Mansons in BTK Killers alive in jails with the chance of escape?), I believe the death penalty has deterred at least some people from committing murder.
17 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
Ok, so we should weigh up the good and bad that comes from it. It has deterred at least some people from killing others. However it has led to the deaths of many more people (all the murderers) compared to the number deterred. "Do we really want to keep Charles Mansons in BTK Killers alive in jails with the chance of escape." I believe the chance of escape is remote especially considering the amount of security provided for such high profile cases.
16 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
But when you weigh the deaths out, the deaths from crime are all (well mostly) innocent people: women walking home from the grocery store, children playing in a yard, families and friends. The people dying from the death penalty are guilty people who have taken the lives of others. I have heard that there are false verdicts and that some innocent people are killed accidentally, but that number is decreasing year by year. Back in the 70's, they didn't know how to test DNA, but now that we can, verdicts are far more accurate.
16 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
Your reasoning is solid. I agree that the people who are killed are mostly innocent people and that those killed by the death penalty are almost certainly guilty of the crime. We differ in our ideological basis whereby I believe that even a serial killer's human life is precious. I believe that people are essentially good but their view can become twisted and perverted and they lose control and basic morality. Society should be protected by all means from such people ie, life sentences, I only wish that their lives could be spared in the hope that some good may come from them. Thanks for the debate
14 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
I would much prefer that the Manson's & BTK's of the world be held under study for life without parole so that we can better understand why they turned out the way that they did, so that others need not go down that same path in the future.
17 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
We do know a lot about why they became mass murderers. Even if we kept them alive in a cell, there's no guarantee they would cooperate. We can get more information from a third party anyway. If you want to find out about a person's character, the best people to ask are people who are close to them. The person in question is likely to exaggerate the truth and omit details.
17 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
"Even if we kept them alive in a cell, there's no guarantee they would cooperate" ...except that many already have. "We can get more information from a third party anyway." There's no better source for the truth than from a first-hand account.
17 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Do you honestly think a mass murderer is a viable source of information? I've heard stories of these people before. My mom worked in a place designed to handle paranoid schizophrenics and people with bi-polar disorders. One person there actually killed his entire family when he was younger, except for his sister because she got away in time. When asked why he killed them, he said that the chickens on his farm told him to grab a wrench and beat them all to death. So now that we know he's insane, we should allow him to walk the streets? I'm sure if they could track down his sister, they'd find out a lot more things about his life that they didn't know beforehand. Also, if you're going to downvote an argument, explain why. And "I disagree" in any form is a very bad reason.
17 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
Very logical, I agree, the family or friends would be a more reliable source because they are less deluded than the person who thought it was right to kill others. This isn't to say that the murderer's verbal accounts of his own experience could not also be valuable information to piece together the puzzle.
14 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
"Do you honestly think a mass murderer is a viable source of information?" Do you honestly believe in science?? I do, and I know that through studying things that we learn more about how & why they occur, period. "When asked why he killed them, he said that the chickens on his farm told him to grab a wrench and beat them all to death. So now that we know he's insane, we should allow him to walk the streets?" LOL...who says that we need to release people that are a danger to themselves & others?? That's a strawman argument. As for your buddy, he obviously had a specific mental disorder, but WHY did he develop it?? Wasn't chemical, biological, his treatment as a child, etc., etc.?? We need to KNOW these things in order to prevent others from falling into the same trap of mental illness!
17 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
I think that it is possible to exonerate people after they have been tried and been convicted as guilty. I think that even though it never happens, it can. Criminals should live all their life thinking about what they have done, and even if the state does not recognize it, they can repent in their heart. I don't think we should ban the death penalty, but should be used very sparingly.
9 days ago | Tagged As: No But_
The death sentence is a good thing. Well if the crime is bad enough they should be killed. not for like steeling or anything but murder and terrorism and stuff like that the person should be. also i dont think they should be held in prison for years after the trial because they are going to be killed so we might as well kill them soon so we dont have to pay for them with our taxes.. (our taxes pay for prisons)
21hrs 27mins ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
They shouln't. Most of the time it is murderers. They kill people. Ever heard of the phrase, "Treat others how you wish to be treated"?
15 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
find a tall tree and a short rope. its time to go back to the old day's when it was safe to walk the sreets at night
10 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
We can NEVER return to the days of vigilante justice, which was MUCH more capable of hanging the wrong person than our current system is.
2 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Capital punishment is what is keeping America alive. Without it, we would all be dead. Of course, no state really enforces it with the appeals and the parole and stuff that basically lets murderers scape by while people who didn't do anything get accused, tried, and convicted for nothing~! V
21 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
"Capital punishment is what is keeping America alive. Without it, we would all be dead. Of course, no state really enforces it with the appeals and the parole and stuff that basically lets murderers scape by while people who didn't do anything get accused, tried, and convicted for nothing" Your argument here is completely convoluted, and you just contradicted yourself over the course of just two sentences! How could it possibly be true that "capital punishment is what is keeping America alive" if basically (in your opinion) "no state really enforces it"?? If anything, this kind of "argument" is an argument for abolishing the death penalty, since it isn't used uniformly across the entire country. It certainly doesn't seem like the portions of the USA that don't have a death penalty are "dying".
20 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Most other first-world countries don't have the death penalty, but have lower rates of crime, just pointing that out. (I'm for it for moral reasons, against for practical, in case you were wondering.)
18 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
I agree with you again veronica. If we didn't have the simple threat of death for murder, then people would commit that crime more often. I thought that we should of hanged Sadam Husein high in the court yard of the white house then let the Middle East have him to drag his head thru the streets on a pole!!! Just my personal opinion~! C
21 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the death penalty deters crime. The rest of your "argument" here is merely vengeance disguised as "justice".
20 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
How does a law that establishes a zero recidivism rate not deter crime? If we kill people who commit crimes, do you think that they will commit them again? No, because its impossible. Capital punishment offers little deterrence, but its wrong to say that it has an effect on future crime equal to zero.
20 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
"How does a law that establishes a zero recidivism rate not deter crime?" You're making a HUGE assumption that the person being put to death is actually guilty. We know for a FACT that innocent people have been put to death already! "Capital punishment offers little deterrence, but its wrong to say that it has an effect on future crime equal to zero." You've successfully completely contradicted yourself over the course of just one sentence! Furthermore: "Capital Punishment Doesn’t Deter Crime – It’s a fact" http://www.moraldilemma.observationdeck.org/?p=88 "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." Former Attorney General Janet Reno -No support whatsoever is found for the argument that the certainty or speed of the death penalty provides an effective deterrent to murder. Not a single reputable study has yet to demonstrate the death penalty to be a more effective deterrent to murder than alternative legal sanctions. "[Capital punishment] violates the Eighth Amendment because it is morally unacceptable to the people of the United States at this time in their history. In judging whether or not a given penalty is morally acceptable, most courts have said that the punishment is valid unless 'it shocks the conscience and sense of justice of the people.' Assuming knowledge of all the facts presently available regarding capital punishment, the average citizen would, in my opinion, find it shocking to his conscience and sense of justice. For this reason alone, capital punishment cannot stand." Thurgood Marshall, former US Supreme Court Associate Justice -Capital punishment is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice. When the govt. metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life & human dignity. In a civilized society, we reject the principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist's house. Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of uncivilized society. -There has been a recent drop in the broad use of the death penalty, as indicated by a 60% drop in death sentences, a 45% decline in executions, a smaller death row, and a decreasing level of public support. In public opinion polls, there is a clear upward trend in support for life-without-parole sentences as a substitute for the death penalty. States without the death penalty have fared BETTER in reducing their murder rates than states with the death penalty. The death penalty concentrates millions of dollars on a few people with almost no control over the outcome. There are MUCH better ways to spend the public's tax dollars than on court cases trying to execute people.
20 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
"We know for a FACT that innocent people have been put to death already"- then give me their names. "You've successfully completely contradicted yourself"- how? In the United States, guilty beyond reasonable doubt is an extremely high standard. The American government goes to great lengths to ensure protection for its law-abiding citizens. According to a 2008 uniform crime report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there was an average of 17999.5 murders and non-negligent manslaughter instances per year in the United States between 1998 and 2008. In addition to this, the U.S. Department of Justice stated that an average of 70.4 executions a year occurred between 1998 and 2008. Assuming that there is an individual killer for each murder, this data shows that, averagely, just 0.39% of murders are matched with the execution of the people who commit them. The low number of executions and the very high number of murders demonstrates the difficulty for the U.S. court system to execute an innocent person. The founding fathers, were major supporters of the death penalty. They were the ones who wrote the Eighth Amendment, therefore it cannot contradict their views. Isn't it cruel to society if we give killers a chance to freedom? Its not really a matter of doing to criminals what they did to other people, its more a matter of giving them the maximum punishment for a terrible crime. Execution by the government is the best form of opposition to murder. Some researchers have shown that the United States, a country with capital punishment, has a higher crime rate than Great Britain, a country without capital punishment. What has to be taken into consideration, though, is not that capital punishment increases murder rates, but that it is imposed because of higher murder rates. There are other laws that can be attributed to more murder, such as gun laws. Britain, which has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe, has an intentional homicide rate that is less than half that of the U.S.. It is, therefore, accurate to say that reform is needed in other laws, not in laws for execution. The death penalty has been used as a scapegoat for many people who are against executions. Louisiana, a state with the death penalty and the highest murder rate in the country, has almost no gun control. The National Rifle Association reports that there is no permit needed in order to purchase handguns, rifles or shotguns in Louisiana. In Britain, the maximum sentence for just carrying an imitation gun, such as an airsoft or pellet gun, is one year in prison. In order to decrease crime, the government should decrease guns in circulation, not stop the executions of murderers which probably has no effect on crime rate. If we assume that complete and utter protection for members of society cannot have a price, then it is accurate to say that the death penalty is priceless and worth much more than alternatives. A sociologist once said that "the actual monetary costs are trumped by the importance of doing justice" referring to capital punishment.
20 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
"then give me their names." Sure: "DNA Tests Prove Justice Has Failed" "Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, 33, spent nearly half his life in a New York prison for a rape and murder he did not commit. DNA testing cleared Deskovic and he was released Sep. 20 from prison." "In 2004, Ryan Matthew, convicted for the murder of a local convenience store owner in Louisiana, escaped the death penalty after prosecutors dropped all charges on the basis of DNA testing results." "Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented at least 38 executions carried out in the United States in spite of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt since capital punishment was restored in the mid-1970s." "Moreover, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented 123 death-row inmates who, since 1973, have been exonerated and freed before their executions." "The staff of the CWC pioneered the investigation and litigation of wrongful convictions, relying a great deal on DNA testing. Their work proving the innocence of 11 men sitting on death row in the U.S. state of Illinois was a driving force behind former Governor George H. Ryan's decision to suspend executions in Illinois in January, 2001." "The Innocence Project, which worked to free Deskovic, only handles cases where post-conviction DNA tests can yield conclusive proof of innocence. To date, it has helped exonerate 184 people, proving that wrongful convictions are not rare." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/ 0921-08.htm -In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review that found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed." "Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed, Judge Says" "'In the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood,' the judge, Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court in Boston, wrote in a decision allowing a capital case to proceed to trial. He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row based on DNA and other evidence." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/national/12DEAT.html -Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented 38 executions carried out since the mid-1970s where there was compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Another 130 death row inmates were exonerated, instead of executed, between 1973-2008 due to emerging evidence, including DNA analysis. A smaller number of people have been exonerated posthumously. The Death Penalty Information Center estimates for every seven executions, one death row inmate is exonerated. "Innocence and the Death Penalty" http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty --------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the United States, guilty beyond reasonable doubt is an extremely high standard" ...and yet dozens & dozens of people have already been PROVEN to have been wrongfully convicted of a crime that they NEVER committed. "The founding fathers, were major supporters of the death penalty" ...says who?? "Its not really a matter of doing to criminals what they did to other people, its more a matter of giving them the maximum punishment for a terrible crime" ...which is why I and many others favor life without parole, period. "Some researchers have shown that the United States, a country with capital punishment, has a higher crime rate than Great Britain, a country without capital punishment. What has to be taken into consideration, though, is not that capital punishment increases murder rates, but that it is imposed because of higher murder rates." There's absolutely ZERO evidence that having a death penalty statute causes a lower crime rate, period. These kind of laws are NO deterrent! "In order to decrease crime, the government should decrease guns in circulation" We are in agreement here. "If we assume that complete and utter protection for members of society cannot have a price, then it is accurate to say that the death penalty is priceless and worth much more than alternatives." At what cost do you put ONE human life that is snuffed out WRONGFULLY by the govt.??
17 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Jeffrey Mark Deskovic was never put to death, so I don't know how that is an example of someone who was wrongfully executed. Ryan Matthew- he wasn't wrongfully executed either. Northwestern University School of Law- Those researchers were speculating that 38 people have been wrongfully executed. None of the cases were officially proved to involve someone who was wrongfully executed. "have been exonerated and freed before their executions"- once again, no issue of wrongful executions. "litigation of wrongful convictions"- wrongful convictions, not wrongful executions. "it has helped exonerate 184 people, proving that wrongful convictions are not rare"- wrongful convictions, not wrongful executions. 1987 Stanford Law Review study- "found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death"- key phrases: SOME EVIDENCE + COULD HAVE. This doesn't prove that people were wrongfully executed. "Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed"- a sign is not going to prove anything. "He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row"- none were proved to be wrongfully executed. It seems like you are trying to show that since innocent people have been placed in jail for very long amounts of time and that people have been exonerated on death row, it must somehow mean there have been innocent people who were killed. I don't understand why you think this because Deskovic, for example, was never killed. When people have been put on death row and found innocent, the appeals process worked. The justice system succeeded in saving the innocent. This proves that the safeguards in place for saving the life of a convict on death row work. It hasn't been proven that these safeguard do not work. "...and yet dozens & dozens of people have already been PROVEN to have been wrongfully convicted of a crime that they NEVER committed."- not proven, but speculated. Until the US Supreme Court has enough evidence to say that they have killed an innocent person, they will not officially declare a wrongful execution. It is extremely rare for someone with a large amount of evidence against them to even get to death row. Also, since DNA technology could only increase in efficiency in the future, the chance of wrongful execution could only decrease. "...says who??"- if they were against capital punishment, it would have been abolished the day this country was established. Obviously, none of them chose to end it, it continued. "There's absolutely ZERO evidence that having a death penalty statute causes a lower crime rate, period. These kind of laws are NO deterrent!"- like I said before, it may have a low deterrent effect, but it is irrational to say that it has a zero deterrent effect. If a killer is killed, he can never kill again. That is deterrence. "At what cost do you put ONE human life that is snuffed out WRONGFULLY by the govt.??"- it has never been proved that that has occurred.
17 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
"Those researchers were speculating that 38 people have been wrongfully executed. None of the cases were officially proved to involve someone who was wrongfully executed." "1987 Stanford Law Review study- 'found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death'- key phrases: SOME EVIDENCE + COULD HAVE." Look, it's pretty obvious to all here that you're in denial mode. The FACT is that people have been put on death row for crimes that they haven't committed, and some of them in recent years have been lucky enough to have been exonerated. If you don't want to believe that this has happened in the past (and that it's all just something that has happened recently), then so be it...continue to put your head in the sand & see if I care. "When people have been put on death row and found innocent, the appeals process worked" ...now that we have DNA evidence that is...and what about before that?? You don't care...that's what! "Until the US Supreme Court has enough evidence to say that they have killed an innocent person, they will not officially declare a wrongful execution." Oh, so now you're a Supreme Court expert?? LOL...give us all a break... "if they were against capital punishment, it would have been abolished the day this country was established." LOL...thanks for admitting that you have absolutely ZERO proof of how the Founders viewed capital punishment. I appreciate it! "it is irrational to say that it has a zero deterrent effect. If a killer is killed, he can never kill again" ...and the same thing would be true if that person was given life without parole, period. "it has never been proved that that has occurred" ...in your own closed mind that is...ugh...
16 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
"Look, it's pretty obvious to all here that you're in denial mode. "- i thought it sounded kind of like that when I was typing it out because I had to constantly tell you that your information didn't mean anything. If you go through all of the cases that were shown by researchers, none of them prove that the person involved was wrongfully executed. They may show that there is some evidence to suggest that they may have been killed while innocent, but there is no evidence that proves they were completely innocent. "The FACT is that people have been put on death row for crimes that they haven't committed"- like I just explained, that is not a fact. "...now that we have DNA evidence that is...and what about before that?? You don't care...that's what!"- why does it matter about the past if it can only get more accurate in the future? If we are talking about abolishing the death penalty, then what is the point in arguing against technology that can only become more advanced? "Oh, so now you're a Supreme Court expert?? LOL...give us all a break..."- are you kidding me? You don't have to be a "Supreme Court expert" to know that the justices' are the ones who are going to have to admit to wrongful execution. How is that so difficult to understand? "LOL...thanks for admitting that you have absolutely ZERO proof of how the Founders viewed capital punishment."- i don't understand how that shows zero proof. If the founding fathers were the ones in control of the country when it was first started, then everything that they wanted to occur in terms of legislation changes would have occurred. They would have made sure to ban capital punishment, instead of allow its continued practice, if they were against it. "...and the same thing would be true if that person was given life without parole, period."- but because of changed laws, there have been people who have been set free even though they were supposed to be in jail for life. "...in your own closed mind that is...ugh..."- how do I have a closed mind if I don't support something that never occurred?
16 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
"that is not a fact." Yes, it is, and I have clearly shown that...with links to prove it even. "why does it matter about the past if it can only get more accurate in the future?" Riiiight, the past doesn't matter...sure, sure... "If we are talking about abolishing the death penalty, then what is the point in arguing against technology that can only become more advanced?" Who's arguing against technology here?? YOU ARE! You refuse to acknowledge that DNA evidence has freed people from death row, which it clearly has! "You don't have to be a 'Supreme Court expert' to know that the justices' are the ones who are going to have to admit to wrongful execution." Nonsense, the issue of people being put to death for crimes that they likely NEVER committed is only one issue with the death penalty. The death penalty is cruel & unusual punishment, and it has been (and will continue to be) applied unfairly to different racial & ethnic groups. It's just a matter of time before the USA joins the rest of the civilized world & bans the death penalty for good. "i don't understand how that shows zero proof. If the founding fathers were the ones in control of the country when it was first started, then everything that they wanted to occur in terms of legislation changes would have occurred." Really?? Well, they also allowed slavery to exist, and they denied Native Americans, women, and people that didn't own property the right to vote. So, I guess we should go back to doing all that now, eh?? Please, you have yet to cite a single quote from ANY of the Founders about the death penalty. In fact, I'll bet that you don't even know or care how they felt on the issue, period. "there have been people who have been set free even though they were supposed to be in jail for life" ...or been executed, period. "how do I have a closed mind if I don't support something that never occurred?" Ugh...we're done here buddy...move along...I'm not responding to you on this issue anymore...there's no point to it...
16 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
"Yes, it is, and I have clearly shown that...with links to prove it even."- it is true that you have given me sources, but it is also true that you have misinterpreted those sources. "Riiiight, the past doesn't matter...sure, sure..."- in speculating the future advancements of DNA technology it doesn't matter. "Who's arguing against technology here?? YOU ARE! You refuse to acknowledge that DNA evidence has freed people from death row, which it clearly has!"- why would anyone argue against the death penalty on the basis of DNA technology, if it can only become more advanced? When the point that someone on death row was saved by DNA is brought up, it shows that system works because it has saved their life. "Nonsense, the issue of people being put to death for crimes that they likely NEVER committed is only one issue with the death penalty."- so you are saying that most people put on death row are likely to never have committed the crime they are being convicted for? Considering all the appeals processes that they have to go through, the evidence against them, and the fact that people are trying to execute them, I would say that its highly unlikely that they didn't commit the crime of which they were accused. "The death penalty is cruel & unusual punishment, and it has been (and will continue to be) applied unfairly to different racial & ethnic groups."- There are many interpretations of the phrase “cruel and unusual” and many perspectives that contest its proper usage. For example, someone could suggest that life without parole is cruel and unusual to the prisoner because it keeps them in a cell for the rest of their life. Others might explain that it’s cruel and unusual to the victim to keep the murderer alive. These arguments are only opinions, though, and cannot be taken in reference with the Constitution. Arguments that support the death penalty are the only ones that can reference the Constitution. Constitutionally, execution does not violate the “cruel and unusual” clause in the Bill of Rights. First, the Bill of Rights was written by people who supported the death penalty, therefore it cannot be contradictory to the views of those who are in favor of imposing capital punishment. Second, while there are many different interpretations of the phrase “cruel and unusual”, the only one that can be used in reference with the Constitution is the perspective that supports the death penalty. An individual cannot explain that it is unconstitutional to execute someone since the framers of the Constitution believed that execution was not cruel. If the founding fathers did believe that capital punishment was wrong, then it would have been outlawed the day the United States was established. It’s important to note that, for most people, execution is gruesome and the thought of killing someone is not appealing. What also has to be taken into account, however, is that most of the executed have taken more away from society than what the government can take from them. According to Pro-Death Penalty.com, “The 518 killers who were executed between 1998 and 2003 had murdered at least 1111 people. That is an average of 2.14 victims per executed killer.” Considering this information, I think that it is accurate to say that it’s cruel and unusual to society and the victim’s family if we keep these people alive, and thereby give them a chance to kill again. "It's just a matter of time before the USA joins the rest of the civilized world & bans the death penalty for good."- then why are you wasting your time arguing about it if your sure that it will be banned? "Really?? Well, they also allowed slavery to exist, and they denied Native Americans, women, and people that didn't own property the right to vote."- none of that was in the Constitution. "...or been executed, period."- what?
15 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
If the death penalty deters murder (as you claim) then why does Europe have a lower murder rate even though they've outlawed the death penalty?
19 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
Europe has alot of other leagal variables you're not taking into account. variables that we in the U.S. don't have and therefore have to use the death penalty.
18 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
They have a lower murder rate probably because the criminals know they can go back and violate their victims again since the EU's laws are so lax regarding the sentencing of violent offenders. Having the criminals know their victims are unarmed, thanks entirely to those of this world that put the lives, freedoms and liberties of criminals way before those that are moral and law abiding, is of course a hand up to the criminal themselves. So it just goes hand in hand that the EU's choice to favor the criminal, not sentencing them and giving them easy prey, is just a bonus for them to spend the rest of their lives, if they somehow manage to actually do something so heinous as to be put in prison, being pampered by the gracious tax payers.
18 days ago | Tagged As: Hang 'em high!
Look violence rates of ALL kinds are lower outside of the USA in countries with no death penalty, period.
17 days ago | Tagged As: Let 'em live
|
