CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people?
For people convicted of killing other people, should the death penalty be given as a form of punishment to prevent deterrence amonst future or present criminals. There are many theologies backed by the initial support of statistics which proves true, the theories by various researchers that the death penalty can be a form of deterrence. Does the imposition of the death penalty violates the constitutional right of the defendant and does it violate the 8th ammendment of the laws. Remember guy, in this case, we ware concentrating murder and not other offenses or crimes.
The only reason the lethal injection costs so much is the amount of money expened during trial but hey guess what theyre going to trial anyways so those costs may be a little higher when fighting to kill the sick sob that can escape (theres been numerous escapees in maximum security btw theyve got nothing but time on their hands to get out and thats all they want) and you could be the next victim or your kids or someone YOU care about so why take that risk. So if court time is inebitable + a wee bit more time in court + the $86.08 it costs for the drug itself i dont understand how theres even an argument on the money situation. and as far as "good graces" for someone that really goes to that extent and cannot show self control deserve more than the lethal injection they should be tortured for the rest of their life then maybe their "mental disease" they claimed in court might just poof into thin air. Im not uderstanding what type of sensitive people that live in this country that used to be based on a strong diplomatic structure are hiring lawyers to find a better way to say "dont punish me becuse im insane or i have a ridiculous allaby. we are even giving terrorists rights where does it end?
The money situation is what you stated it as- court. It costs a lot of money to go through the process of actually having someone put to death. If you don't understand why it's so much more expensive, look it up. it's not the $86.08 that people fuss about, its the payment of the lawyers, and judges, and court time that will cost the state and payment to outside lawyers. If you want to pay extra in taxes for people that you don't know and will never know be put to death over life imprisonment...
The court time is not inevitable, otherwise there wouldn't be an argument as to the death penalty being more expensive than life imprisonment. It's not like the murderer is put on trial for either life imprisonment or the death sentence and that's it, they go to jail or die and the costs are the same. It's a much more complicated procedure than that.
I understand your implication that some people use an insanity defense when they are really not what normal citizens would define as clinically insane. But your solution would undermine the entire justice system. Judges don't get to look at a defendant and say, "well it looks like your allaby is complete bullshit so I'm going to use my own judgement and give you the death penalty". unfortunately our diplomatic system is not like that.
"we are even giving terrorists rights where does it end?"
It ends with you having rights. By taking away the rights and freedoms of those we see fit to by labeling them as "terrorists" we undermine our system of justice. It is a far better solution to give rights to everyone and allow them to prove their innocence (innocent until proven guilty), than to revoke someone's rights and subject our governmental system to the loophole of being able to take away the rights of someone that they define as a terrorist. Where does it end?
-One example I can think of is during WWII. The government had power to imprison all Japanese living in the US up to at least 2nd generation. That means people from Japan that came here and had been living here for 30 years and had Japanese kids here who spoke English and worked here would be imprisoned because of the fear that they would somehow be infused with a fervent nationalism and try to fight America during WWII. Its this kind of loophole that causes irrational decision making and can ruin the lives of thousands through injustice.
"so those costs may be a little higher when fighting to kill the sick sob that can escape (theres been numerous escapees in maximum security btw theyve got nothing but time on their hands to get out and thats all they want) and you could be the next victim or your kids or someone YOU care about so why take that risk"
I highly doubt the backing of why you personally would want the death penalty invoked is because you're worried at home that a mass murderer is going to escape and kill you or someone you love... seriously?
The vast vast majority of murders are over money or love. Someone has a bad temper and they have a gun in the house. They just found their spouse in bed with another man, and the gun comes out. In a hostile situation where emotions are compromised, things happen. There is no reason to give that person a death penalty. And the argument of deterrence doesn't oblige either because how many people actually believe that people are NOT killing others because their afraid of getting the death penalty. Killing is more impulsive and less taking into account the consequences. Very few people when committing a crime are actually rationalizing out both sides to decide on the best solution. When someone goes to rob a store their not thinking, well there's probably a max of like $1000 maybe $2000 in the store (more likely $300-600), and if I get caught I could get 5-10 years in jail. Is the potential $1000 worth 5 years of my life in jail? THAT IS NOT THE CASE. people find themselves in a pressured situation and impulsively decide to do something.
oh and id also thought id add that RUUKYYUZO you are talking an awful lot like you know a little bit about how a murderers thought process goes is there a possibility that your on a computer in a jail cel somewhere haha
This is a tricky subject. I do feel that those who murder in cold blood would be more than deserving of the death penalty. The problem with capital punishment, however, is that it is permanent. If it is later determined that the convicted felon was, in fact, innocent (as is actually quite common), then the state would have just murdered an innocent human being.
Therefore, with that risk in mind, I do not feel that the death penalty is suitable for any convicted felon, as there is always doubt as to whether or not they committed the crime.
If they did commit the crime, life in jail will separate them from society.
If they did not commit the crime, they can be released from jail.
admittedly, this is a problem with the conviction process rather than the punishment process- but since the two are so strongly linked both should be considered.
The innocent was being executed but not anymore. With the implementation of DNA, many of the innocent have been freeed from the death penalty. Also, the Supreme Court has revised procedures to make sure that the innocent are not executed nor the death penalty directed towards minorities.
It says who was where. Not why they were there, when they were there, or what they did there. In fact, trace DNA can often link innocent people to a crime, simply because they may have jogged by the park that morning.
the Supreme Court has attempted to revise procedures. Just as the Supreme Court has attempted to eliminate crime altogether. I am not sure where you got your information, but I would not trust that source ever again.
The summary of the article you sent me spoke about death row inmates who were already exonerated. Did you study if DNA played a role in the exoneration of these people? Did you study when these people were exonerated and in what year were they placed on the death penalty? Did you study if DNA was present at the time of their court ordered execution? DNA places the person at the crime scene but it also depends on what is the importance of the evidence obtained and whether it or not it supports the chain of evidence obtained by investigators which places the individual as a suspect.
If the Supreme Court did not attempt to revise procedures then why did they make new case laws on dealing with crime and giving the death penalty and established the rights of inmates, offenders and those on death row? Didnt the U.S Supreme Court revised the procedure for search and siezure in which we now know as Miranda v. Arizona? Didnt the U.S Supreme Court revised the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia in which it ruled that the death penalty was being given arbitrarily and discriminately to minorites on which it granted a temporary momatorium on the death penalty?
I got my information from scholarly textbooks presently used in the pursuit of Criminal Law. Why shouldnt i trust them?
If you are claiming that the Supreme Court has attempted to eliminate crime all together then dont just say it, prove it because i do not know where you are getting that from. The Supreme Court is all about rights and constitutional violation.
This is jumping to hasty conclusion. If you are claiming that i am wrong for drawing an assumption then prove to me one recent case, after DNA came out, that innocent people were executed. Innocent executions are eliminated unless you have a recent case to prove it, then prove it. If i recalled you said the Supreme Court tried to eliminate crime altogether?
And I do not believe that the Supreme Court has tried to eliminate crime. I simply argue that the purpose of the entire judicial system, supreme court included, is to eliminate crime by presenting consequences for them. Other than that, this point is not relevant to the matter at hand, and I apologize for bringing it up.
And when you are sending someone evidence to support your claim, dont send them abstract or articles that you have to purchase inorder to view or examine the complete facts.
"dont send them abstract or articles that you have to purchase inorder to view or examine the complete facts."
Im sorry, I did not realize that I could only use freely available knowledge. For some reason, I thought that published journal articles with copyrights on them would be reliable sources. How silly of me.
People convicted in those crimes had nothing to do with DNA but police errors upon which they were exonerated.This took place in a time when sentencing disparity was present. To eliminate the problem of sentencing disparity, the federal sentencing guidelines were developed. There was no revise of the judicial procedures during that time because, the Supreme Court had not revised any procedures as yet.
It was written in 2010 but highlighted issues in the past. Just like my textbooks was written in 2010 and highlighted problems with the judiciary in the past, in which the innocent was wrongfully convicted.
Although it did discuss previous cases, it is addressing the problem as a current one, not an archaic one. I researched specific cases separately, and I posted this in the other thread as well
"Cameron Todd Willingham and Claude Jones. Both men were executed, but recently surfaced evidence indicates they may have been wrongfully convicted."
"Judge Kevin Fine...is considering whether Texas death penalty laws are unconstitutional due to the risk of innocent people being put to death."
Journals can be in 2010 and yet speak about the past. My textbooks were published in 2010 yet thet spoke about what took place in the 1990s. It is not impossible for materials to speak about the past.
Journals can be in 2010 and yet speak about the past. My textbooks were published in 2010 yet they spoke about what took place in the 1990s. It is not impossible for materials to speak about the past. Unless you are implying that it cannot speak about the past because i have never read about that before. If that was the case, then books speaking about the history and highlighting the corruption of the 18th century would have never even been published in 2010. Same goes for books talking about crimes in the 1990s and published in 2010.
IMO the death penalty is about justice for the loved ones of the victims. If someone killed one of my loved ones I wouldn't want them sitting around on their butts in a room with 3 square meals a day given to them, no work required, with the possibility of parole in 5 years. That wouldn't feel like justice to me.
Also, I'd rather kill them than pay to feed them, give them medical care, and watch cable tv.
Also we just don't have the room right now to keep people locked up for life.
Thats what many of the families of victims have said too. Watching the face of the criminal in court as he tells of the entire ordeal where he or she killed their loved ones has been one of the most painful ordeals in court history for families of victims. In some courts, you will find families and friends of the victims holding hands tightly, crying, and praying for justice whilst the accused in sentenced. This is a touching scene to which many can testify to.
Even to Senators and other people have said they felt retribution when the murderer of their loved ones were given the capital punishment.
1st degree murder that was proven to have been planned and executed. Serial killers, "How many people did you kill?" "I kil..." BANG, right in the head with a shotgun. Serial killers are a waste and should not be kept alive costing the taxpayers money.
i agree 110% with the death penalty but by that being said I'm not saying go and kill any man accused of murder I'm for it if the do the CORRECT research and actually prove that the person being accused is 100% guilty I'm not for killing innocent people, we don't need people like Casey Anthony loose on the streets killing more because some idiot judge didn't look at all the facts and the idiotic lawyers didn't gather enough info like they could have!!!! ya i understand it cost more to kill them then it does to basically take care of hem till they die, but i personally would not want to suffer the rest of my life living in a small cell! and then you have to think you waisting your money any ways if your paying to keep them alive because they can be killed just as easy as being in prison then on death row!
it shouldnt matter if they admit to it or not that would just make it easier on the justice department because they dont have to waste their time trying to figure it out!
Your description, that the death penalty is a deterrent, is incorrect.
No punishment has ever been shown to be a deterrent for crimes of passion, or crimes stemming from motivations such as anger, jealousy, or some psychotic phenomenon like sociopathy. Since this makes up the vast majority of murders, there is little if any deterrent even possible.
The death penalty, unbeknownst I find to the vast majority of death penalty supporters, is not in place as a deterrent or even a punishment. It is simply a means to permanently remove a dangerous individual from the population. Courts take the position that, it is not their's to punish, our laws are there to protect individuals or groups, and to rehabilitate perpetrators when possible (not in the case of murder obviously though).
And I am not against this in theory, however in reality the death penalty is not just.
1. Too often it has been found postmortem with DNA evidence, that the one executed was innocent. If this even happens once, that we as a people kill and innocent person falsely accused, it should give us pause. Unfortunately it not only happens once, it happens dozens of times every single year we find.
2. It is actually more expensive to execute an individual, than it is to keep them in a maximum security prison for life.
3. No person has ever escaped a maximum security prison in the history of maximum security prisons. If it is a matter of separating individuals from society, which it is, then this is sufficient - and we do not have to continue killing those who turn out innocent, and we can stop spending ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money executing people.
I will not dispute the fact that you disbelieve in the death penalty but i would dispute the statment you made that the death penalty is not a deterrent. I will use one of the popular study and theory known to those familiar with criminology which proves that the death penalty is actually a deterrent to crime.
Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders. Using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000, Professors Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd were able to compare the relationship between executions and murder incidents before, during, and after the U.S. Supreme Court's death penalty moratorium. They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders.
Separately, Professor Shepherd's analysis of monthly data from 1977 to 1999 found three important findings.
First, each execution, on average, is associated with three fewer murders. The deterred murders included both crimes of passion and murders by intimates.
Second, executions deter the murder of whites and African-Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African-Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races.
Third, shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2.75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, one murder is deterred.
Professors H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings of the University of Colorado at Denver have published two studies confirming the deterrent effect of capital punishment. The first study used state-level data from 1977 to 1997 to analyze the influence of executions, commutations, and removals from death row on the incidence of murder. For each additional execution, on average, about five murders were deterred. Alternatively, for each additional commutation, on average, five additional murders resulted. A removal from death row by either state courts or the U.S. Supreme Court is associated with an increase of one additional murder. Addressing criticism of their work, Professors Mocan and Gittings conducted additional analyses and found that their original findings provided robust support for the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
Two studies by Paul R. Zimmerman, a Federal Communications Commission economist, also support the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Using state-level data from 1978 to 1997, Zimmerman found that each additional execution, on average, results in 14 fewer murders. Zimmerman's second study, using similar data, found that executions conducted by electrocution are the most effective at providing deterrence.[
Using a small state-level data set from 1995 to 1999, Professor Robert B. Ekelund of Auburn University and his colleagues analyzed the effect that executions have on single incidents of murder and multiple incidents of murder. They found that executions reduced single murder rates, while there was no effect on multiple murder rates.
In summary, the recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives. Each additional execution appears to deter between three and 18 murders. While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African-Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African-Americans. Further moratoria, commuted sentences, and death row removals appear to increase the incidence of murder.
The strength of these findings has caused some legal scholars, originally opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, to rethink their case. In particular, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago has commented:
If the recent evidence of deterrence is shown to be correct, then opponents of capital punishment will face an uphill struggle on moral grounds. If each execution is saving lives, the harms of capital punishment would have to be very great to justify its abolition, far greater than most critics have heretofore alleged.
One of the reasons i support the death penalty is because in many situations when prisoners are placed in the court system, they end up murdering other inmates and corrections staff. If you google up the amount of incidents that have happened, you will see various incidents of murder committed by dangerous inmates in prison.
I do not support the death penalty that was imposed in the past, with the absence of DNA and the presence of sentencing disparity in our judicial system. But i do support it now, because issues of sentencing disparity has been dealt with through the introduction of the federal guidelines and the DNA has proved its effectiveness through the release of several inmates. In the past, when DNA was absent and sentencing disparity was present, people were wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit but with the introduction of DNA and federal sentencing guidelines, there have been no issues of those wrongfully executed unless you have evidence to prove your claim.
It might be more expensive to execute but lets also remember the overcrowing of the prison population, rising costs of prison maintenances, problems caused by emergency release and re entry to society, etc.
No person has ever escaped from maximun security prisons but there are also prison riots which sometimes involve many deaths. America most supermaximum prison, Alcatraz, was closed down due to this issue.
Did they just look at the execution months and see if there was a change in the murder patterns for a time frame around where the execution happened? What was their method? I fail to see how they could possibly be a deterrent, since most capital punishments are not widely published and are thus unknown, among other reasons.
They chose highly publicized executions that were taken place and in months in which the execution rate was high and also months in which the execution rate was low to determine the effect of both high and low rate of executions on criminal activity. Why would capital punihsment not be highly publicized when the media can provide you with details on executions in the past? This method which was used has proven effective in determining that the higher the rate of executions, the lower the rate of murders.
that method seems problematic to me, it seems susceptible to "noise", similar to how one may want to predict a stock price moment over the course of a small time frame, If the economy in general is doing well, then a change in an unrelated variable may seem related. The murder rate has decreased in general, and the execution rate has also decreased in general. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state This should be expected because the execution rate is dependent on the murder rate, but if execution does act as a deterrent then increasing it should decrease the murder rate, which would then decrease the execution rate, decreasing the amount of deterrent...etc. We should see some type of sinusoidal pattern if executions act as a significant deterrent. Is there a easily recognizable sinusoidal pattern(after accounting for changes in population) between the execution rate and murder rate in a state like Texas?
Most criminals consider themselves unlikely to be caught, and their considerations of legal penalties depends on the risk of being apprehended. For example, it is common for even police cruisers to speed 5 miles over the speed limit, this is because the risk of being caught is low. After getting caught a person may be more paranoid for a time, but the effect lessens. The penalty of a crime has different effects, and thus a different amount of deterrence for different groups of people, for example the monetary fine for speeding is a greater cause of deterrence for the poor then the rich. I would guess that most murders are done out of passion, when a person is not acting rationally and thus attempts to model murder as a rational decision are inherently flawed. For who rationally consider committing murder, the deterrence of execution would be dependent on how execution effects them as well. To simply say that execution acts as a deterrent is incomplete, we also need to know to whom it acts as such to and what proportion of society they constitute, as well as what proportion of groups likely to murder. Also executions are not in the majority of our lives reminding us of our risks, they do not often make it into our media. It is something people are not reminded enough of to have it be a major concern in their decision making, it is often seen as a distant thing.
If that method seems problematic to you then produce some proof that proves your point because last time, i used that data as part of my presentation before an audience of legal professionals and no dispute arised out of it. If the murder rate has indeed increased then how come in the state of new york where there is presently no death penalty as opposed to the past, we have had an increase in the rate of murders for this year? The point i am trying to make is the point that the higher the rate of executions, the lower the rate of murders. I would reject the point you are trying to make because there have been no issues arising out of this research studies and as a matter of fact, criminal justice scholars used this study in a new scholarly criminology textbook as well which was approved. You are checking on mordern statistics where the death penalty is hardly in effect, which is why crime has been on the increase. I would not accept the secodn link you sent me because an abstract is not much of a proper factual evidence for me.
Most criminals consider themselves unlikely to be caught but also when the rate of execution was higher, it had an effect, on the crime because those executions were publicized. The death penalty is also based on rationality of murder. Many of the persons who are given the death penalty are people who very well know what they did was wrong. A person who had time to kill their victim and looked at them screaming and begging did not act out of rationality but out of passion. Thses studies have been proven to be a deterrent and this study that you are conflicting with was proved to be accurate and as a matter of fact proved the prior theory wrong, of Robert Dann that the death penalty did not act as a deterrence to crime. Like i mentioned before, we know who it acts as a deterrent to; it acts as a deterrent to murderers, isnt that what it was implemented to control and deter?
Also, you cannot compare the crime rate from state to state because you have to take into consideration the different social factors, population size, job availabilties, differences in leglistation and laws and size of the state itself.
Murder rate is an equation of multiple variants. There are more variables then execution rate that may effect murder rate. By skimming my first link it seems like more states without a death penalty statute have less murders then others.
I do need to look over a longer time frame, when I have the time I'll look for more data. Finals are next week though so It may be a while, including new-york.
Then it seems it is not so much execution that has a effect on crime, but propaganda and publicity concerning execution. Which means that the execution rate may be low and still act as even more of a deterrent if publicity is increased.
Are you dyslexic or occasionally mix your words up? I'm going to assume such. If all murders eligible for execution are those who decided to murder rationally then it should be mentioned that executions only deter rationally decided murders, not murders in general.
The second link, which is a list of summaries of scholarly articles and link to the
article by their references if not an actual hyperlink, are readable if you have access. There simply seems to be scholarly debate among sociologists on methodology. wikipedia supports that there is a lack of consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate#Deterrence
So much for the studies proving much, when the professionals don't agree.
rational murders are still a wide group, they include assassins, thieves, gangsters and mafiosos of various ranks, serial killers etc. Of those groups thieves and low level gangsters are the most likely to be deterred, where it likely doesn't matter to the already practicing assassins and serial killers. For these reasons any possible deterrence effect of executions have a maximum of lives saved that is significantly below the number of murders. If one is then to take a broad view and consider that taxes can only be so high, the expense of executions and that there are many government policies that saves lives which may become less efficient if their money was diverted elsewhere, a deterrent effect of any possible magnitude may not be sufficient enough to allow for more executions in that diverting funds away from other programs may possibly allow for more deaths. Even if the government were to raise taxes to fund it, taxes take away from life saving charities as well. All those variables will need to be consider for policy changes.
Each state has different variables yes, but so does each community. By comparing data state to state, you have to keep in mind that each state has different variables, the same is true when you aggregate data from communities to form the state's numbers. By using the studies to support your cause and saying I can not compare various states due to how they have many variables with different values then other states you may very well be ignoring the same complication when looking at a particular state's numbers. I wished I had access to the articles your citing, is there any where they are available for free?
Sorry but Dezbaksh is not a legal professional but a sociologists. They might not be sociologists but they know the difference between accuracy and non accuracy because they might have had experience dealing with reports like these. How can you compare one state to the next? Let me as you this, go onto the U.S Census Population data and then you will see the difference in the population from one state to the next. The rate of crime depends on the size of the population and also depends on the variations between the laws.
Same here too. I am presently researching this topic but i may cut it short until i am finish with my finals and papers due next week.
The propanganda you are claiming about was proved true with by the Bureau of Criminal Justice, which did their own research and found, based on their statistics submitted, that the higher the rate of executions, the lower the rate of murder. I lost the link but i have a copy of the graph i can send to you via email if you like.
The rate of executions if high, will have both an effect on rationality and murders in general. Sorry about that, i was typing in a rush. Firstly, the link you sent me is composed of summaries and inorder for me to make a judgment or a criticism, i have to examine the entire content. Secondly, Wikipedia is a weak form of source for obtaining information and i am sure you are aware of that.
If you are claiming that low levels of theives and gangsters are the only ones to be deterred, then prove it to me. Why would they be deterred when the death penalty is directed towards murderers? Even if the death penalty does not deter serial killers, it prevents them from killing again in society or in prison. If the deterrence is lower than the rate of crime, atleast at the end of the day or week, there is still a live that is saved which is worth saving than doing nothing and letting the innocent suffer. If i am correct, the point that you are trying to make, is that the death penalty is very expensive which will cause pressure on the government and taxpayers. But also, prisons will be rebuilt, maintenance fees increases, prison population increases along with riots, crimes, and murders, increase in fees for sheltering, programs, caring for the eldery and sick in prison and early or emergency re entry to society constitutes more criminal activity and little deterrence effect. How many people who are behind bars have ordered executions, or have undergone treatment programs and released from prison and then murdered and raped again and then gone back to prison? What about Richard Kuklinsi who killed 50 people and chopped up their bodies and froze them to confuse investigators with the time of death. These people deserve little sympathy and punishment instead. Even if deterrence is not the result, then prevention and retribution will surely be the result.
Depending on what communties you are referring to. Communities, regardless of whatever, makes up a part of the state and also their population is added to the state's population. Moreover, communities abide by the laws of the state they belong to. Again, the level of crime depends on the size of the population and communties are governed by the laws and political rules of the state under whose geographical territroy they belong to. Each state has a different population size which will result in higher and lower crime rate in different states. I will try to see if they are anyway i can find access to these articles online. I am using them from textbooks i bought to use for my courses.
Also there are many other factors that relates to the death penalty under than deterrence which makes it as a just form of punishment.
For every study, there is a statistical value known as an r^2 that describes the percentage of correlation between two factors.
For instance, if the study had an r^2 of 1, it would mean that 100% of the change in crime rate was predictable due to a certain factor. If r^2 were .2, 20% of the change in crime rate would have been predictable due to a certain factor.
Any given sets of data will have some correlation. The difference is if it is negligible correlation (0-0.2), weak correlation [.2-.4) moderately weak correlation [.4-.6), moderately strong correlation [.6-.8), or strong correlation [.8-1]
Even an observational study would have a correlation value.
If you could give me the name of the study I could probably find it for you, and then we could see how reliable this study actually is.
because if one execution resulted in 118 less murders, and another execution resulted in 82 MORE murders, the average would still be 18, but the correlation is less than convincing
Even an observational study would have a correlation value.
If you could give me the name of the study I could probably find it for you, and then we could see how reliable this study actually is.
because if one execution resulted in 118 less murders, and another execution resulted in 82 MORE murders, the average would still be 18, but the correlation is less than convincing
I am not here for the sociology of studies. I tried to make a point which i used those studies to support. If you want to find the effectiveness of those studies, then go right ahead and study them. I used a study from the field i am in, in which i was notified that no disputes arised from these studies and it also became one of the well known studies in criminology. I will look into the name of this study tonight after my final exam and i will let you know.
AND DONT EVER TELL ME IT IS A PROBLEM WITH MY COMMUNICATION OR UNDERSTANDING IF YOU HAVE NEVER VIEWED THE MATERIAL YOURSELF AS YOU DID IN THE PREVIOUS ARGUMENT.
AND DONT EVER TELL ME IT IS A PROBLEM WITH MY COMMUNICATION OR UNDERSTANDING IF YOU HAVE NEVER VIEWED THE MATERIAL YOURSELF AS YOU DID IN THE PREVIOUS ARGUMENT.
I have evidence that says that innocent people are convicted of crimes.
You have evidence that the supreme court is attempting to mitigate innocent convictions
This proves that less innocent people are being convicted of a crime.
However, you concluded that no innocent people are being convicted of crimes
and this is simply untrue.
If you provide me with a title, I can review the information.
my previous argument had a title, just not a full text. A full text is available on the web. And writing in all caps does not make your argument any more effective, nor your understanding of the material any greater.
If you can show me a credible source that says that NO innocent people are convicted of crimes, then I will eat my own words. However, as I see no way that our government has perfected its conviction process, I do not honestly foresee this occurring.
Prove to me one innocent conviction in the year 2010, and then i will re examine my argument. Prove to me an innocent person convicted or executed, and still in prison dont just talk about it, prove it. Give me a recent case, not even articles.
It was not the government that perfected its procedure, it was the Supreme Court that revised many of it. I will send you the link later tonight.
And if you are going to send me the link, please try and find the data, if available. If I cannot find the R^2 value in the article I can calculate it myself.
When was Cameron T. Willingham and Claude Jones wrongfully executed? What year was it in? According to the link you sent me (feel free to correct me if i misunderstood) but the link you sent me talks about the Judge considering whether the Texas Death Penalty laws are unconstitutional. Was there a ruling that made a rule on the death penalty laws there being unconstitutional? Because, until then it would be hasty conclusion to even make an argument based on a consideration and not a judgement or ruling.
I think your graph actually explains the point i am trying to make (fig 1). According to your graph, statistics were presented in the graph, for the execution rate and the crime rate. Now, lets say we are concentrating on the execution rate of Texas which is 239. Now, the murders that took place within those years are thousands and not only hundreds. If within a 20 year period starting from 1982 to 2002, you have 239 executions, then the average executions per year, will be 12. In the year 1982 alone, you had 2, 466 murders. Do you expect 12 executions per year to deter a murder rate of the above mentioned amount? The point i was trying to make regarding the death penalty is the higher the execution rate, the lower the murder rate and the lower the execution rate, the higher the murder rate, which by the way, the first graph just proved.
You can examine the link below regarding the crime rate in Texas from the period 1960 to 2009.
Here is a summary from a essay also speaking on the deterrent effect of the death penalty and how often its used.
30 years of studies suggest that the death penalty is a general, or systemic, deterrent. (See works by Profs. D. Cloninger, S. Cameron, I. Ehrlich, W. Bailey, D. Lester, S. Layson, K. I. Wolpin, L. Phillips, S. C. Ray, S. Stack, etc.) Examples: a) A 1967-68 study revealed 27 states showed a deterrent effect (Bailey, W.,1974); b) The 1960's showed a rapid rise in all crimes, including murder, while both prison terms and executions declined (Passell, P. & Taylor, T., 1977; Bowers, W. & Pierce, G., 1975); c) Murder increased 100% during the U.S.’s moratorium on executions (Carrington, F., Neither Cruel Nor Unusual); d) 14 nations that abolished the death penalty showed that murder rates increased 7% from the 5 year pre-abolition period to the 5 year post abolition period (Archer, et al, 1977); e) A 37 state study showed that 24 states showed a deterrent effect, 8 states showed a brutalization effect and 5 states showed no effect (Bailey, W., 1979-80); and f) econometric studies indicate that each execution may deter 8 or more murders ( Cameron, S., 1994). Although these studies have been produced by respected social scientists, there are also studies which show no general deterrent effect. Indeed, with the complexity of these studies and with the number of variables required to accurately measure the general deterrent effect of executions on murder rates, it is arguable if there ever will be a statistical consensus with general deterrence studies. With so few executions and so many murders, the general deterrent effect may remain statistically elusive. However, it is that very inconclusive nature of general deterrence which provides the two reasons which require executions. First, we must choose to use executions because they may save innocent life. Whereas, if we choose not to use executions and there is a general deterrent effect, we would be sacrificing innocent lives. Therefore, a moral imperative exists to choose executions (see B. 9). Secondly, the individual deterrent effect would not exist but for the presence of general deterrence. And because the individual deterrent effect is proven and cannot be contradicted, we know that the general deterrent effect must exist, even though its existence may remain inconclusive by statistical analysis.
This link you sent me talks about the possbility of the innocent being executed and the moratorium was implemented to prevent that. But also, there are no actual wrongful executions mentioned in there. It is all opinions lacking the support of any statistics.
Finally here is the link i promised you i would send. Evaluate it and let me know.
I cannot give you a current case of a person wrongly convicted because nobody willingly executes an innocent person.
Therefore it is impossible for me to give you a current execution of a person who was innocent. That information will always arise later.
What you are asking me to do is to find a mistake that will be realized in the future. I do not claim to know the future, so I cannot say if any current cases will or will not be determined to be errors.
The evidence i can bring to you is of cases that were recently discovered to have been errors. There is no way you could possibly expect for me to show a very current case of a person being executed. Perhaps in a few years from now I will be able to show you which convicts were innocent.
I am sorry, give me a case found in 2010 or 2009 of a person wrongfully executed. Because as far as i am aware, i have not heard of any wrongful executions between last year to this year. That was my original question to you. Those cases were in a time of judicial corruption and disparity, which is the very reason i had despised the death penalty and those are the cases you presented to me. Those cases were tried in those times.
That case that you presented me with is from 10 years ago. I agree cases can take that long to determine about whether the results of the trial or sentencing was the basis of an error. But not all cases take that long to appeal rulings. Also, this topic is capital punishment so we are focusing on execution and not conviction. Because one of the rigts the accused has to make sure that he is not wrongfully incarcerated is more than 5 levels of appeal courts along with the U.S Supreme Court, if the prisoner is not satisfied with the ruling of the lower courts.
It had the capacity to kill people who were innocent but that was in the past. That is the very reason why The Supreme Court are always making new case laws. Last night i was studying several cases in the past in which the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty, one such example is Weems v. USA, which is why the first argument i made, is the Supreme Court revising several procedures.
Like, i said the whole aim of my point is executions and i am not even going to research any further because i proved my point already and the Supreme Court is there to free innocent people on convictions. Furthermore, many of the challenges to the criminal justice system now is violation of constitutional rights and not wrongful convictions or executions. For me, it is right to kill people who are disrespectful of the law of the land by killing other people. Letting them live can cause them to order executions from behind bars, even murder in prison and commit murders upon re entry to society.
As mentioned in the previous article, there are confounding variables that lead to the conclusion that execution rates are correlated with murder rates.
However, a comparative study between states comparing executions rates to murder rates showed a different story.
Based on the data provided by all of these studies, I calculated an R^2 value of under 3% correlation.
That graph is convincing because it proves that theory that i was explaining so in no way do i doubt it. The lower the execution rate, the higher the murder rate and the higher the execution rate, the lower the murder rate, which is the very reason why i do not dispute the theory of the graph because it proves the point i have been making all along.
That is the reason why the trend was consistent throughout all the states. Because if Texas is the state mostly known for executions and the rate of executions were that low there then that is the reason why there is no deterrence effect of the death penalty on the criminal population. The link you sent me explained it all itself. You cant use 12 executions per year with a murder rate of approx. 2000 murders per year. If the execution rate was used more often then you would see a result and if you have some udnerstanding on criminal pyschology and criminology, then you would understand what i am talking about. Punishment when used more often will have an effect on the mind but when it is not used that often will not affect the mind. The other states do not have a higher execution rate than Texas, which is why the number of executions for Texas was given and not the execution of other states.
"there is no deterrence effect of the death penalty on the criminal population"
And there is no evidence that increasing it would act as a deterrent.
any correlation under 5% is essentially natural variation.
and the article stated that all available state records were used. When I calculated the R^2 value, I used all 36 states in the universal crime report.
It makes no sense for me to continue arguing that there is a deterrence when i proved it to you already so whether you accept it or continue to reject it or ignore it, does not change the fact that there is a deterrence. Even studies from textbooks support this view by Dezbaksh.
Siegel, Larry J. (2008). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies (10th Ed.). USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
It does not matter what your calculations are, because you seem to be forgetting about all the studies i produced you with and the loophole i found in your graph you sent me that proves that point exactly that i made and now you are saying that there are no studies that proved the death penalty is not a deterrence? Therefore i was just wasting my time here all the time proving the deterrence studies to you. It does not matter how many states you used because like i said, i proved my thoery with the very graph you sent me and calculations has nothing to do with it. It actually made it easier for me. And finally Dezbacksh and many other researchers proved that the death penalty is a deterrence.
On the one hand, you claim that it is proven that executions at as deterrents.
On the other hand, you claim that there are not enough executions to be effective.
so with this in mind, how were the studies conclusive?
and if there were enough executions to be effective
then the evidence suggests that there was a lurking variable in other studies that changed with time, since between states of the same time period there was no change in rate of murders versus executions.
What loophole did I find?
I simply mentioned the study's point.
the study says that murders increased over time
and execution decreased over time
and that time was open to lurking variable.
however, when placed directly against each other, there was NO correlation directly between murders and executions, which suggests that another factor influenced the change in murder.
This is exactly what my calculations suggest. However, rather than simply say "no" correlation, I stated the exact calculation of 3% correlated. You have no grounds to say that my math is correlated.
If you read my arguments clearly you would understand that i said capital punishment if used more often will deter crime. Point out how many executions are taking place per year and compared to that the murder rate and tell me what you are seeing. The studies concluded that the death penalty is a deterrent depending on how often you used it. Right now, the death penalty is little or not being used at all. Its like saying we are giving probation to every criminals now instead of sending most of them to prison or jail.
But i also sent you links and studies that proved the higher the execution rate, the lower the murder rate by sending you various studies. I have no idea what you are implying but if the death penalty is a deterrence when used often as compared to being used a little or not at all, then the death penalty is a deterrence to crime because when it is used more often, it constantly reminds people of the nature of punishment so therefore it is a deterrence.
"the study says that murders increased over time
and execution decreased over time."
You said it yourself. If the execution rate decreased and the murder rate increased then that explains the deterrence effect of capital punishment. The only factor that influenced the rate of murder was the death penalty. If there was another factor, then there would have already been arguments against this study using other studies produced by the opponents of the death penalty to proved this theory wrong.
"But i also sent you links and studies that proved the higher the execution rate, the lower the murder rate by sending you various studies."
"If the execution rate decreased and the murder rate increased then that explains the deterrence effect of capital punishment. The only factor that influenced the rate of murder was the death penalty."
No. Thats what my calculations disproved. Only 3% of the data actually matches. the other 97% of fluctuations are attributed to uknown variables.
There is absolutely no way to eliminate all other variables. For instance, executions may be decreasing because of growing concerns over its constitutionality. Whereas murder rates are growing because the national population is growing.
The number one rule of statistics is "correlation does not mean causation". The absolute correlation between the two variables does not prove that one affects the other, especially not in an observational study.
"then there would have already been arguments against this study using other studies produced by the opponents of the death penalty to proved this theory wrong"
you mean like the article I cited, and the many articles it discussed?
the lurking variables are, by definition, unknown. However, mathematically, they are proven to exist. If they did not exist, there would be a perfect linear 100% relation- not a 3% correlation.
If your calculations disproved that, then produce some other source that discredit the validity of those studies. Even if the population is growing, the execution rate was lower and thousands of murder will not be committed by immigrants but most by citizens and the numbers here are crimes and not the population. If immigrants were solely responsible for committing all those murders at a large rate then the U.S would not even be faced with all these immigrants because they would have deported them. Like i said, it it takes more than opinion to make me believe something so prove it not by opinions but by sources that supports the point you are making in relation to the same studies.
The arguments thats you are supporting with the corelation value. According to you, something else is responsible for the trend and not the death penalty. Then prove with another source pointing out the exact point you made.
Are you asking me to tell you what the lurking variables are? Because I cannot. I am not a miracle worker.
However, the mathematics that are supported by my article are conclusive. the trends between execution rates murder rates are insubstantial. That means that the two were not correlated strongly.
since there was a trend in general, but not between each other, the only logical conclusion is that some variable unaccounted for. it is a classic type one error.
There is nothing to support your claim thats you are making. According to you, the mathematics supported your article but that is all you are claiming. I understand that it supports your article, but also it is part of your opinions that you are trying to prove. If there was another factor associated with the increase in the murder rate and not the death penalty, then the article itself would have pointed it out. Why did it not pointed it out if it is so accurate and it opposes the death penalty? Wikipedia is a weak form of source because anyone can post things there but that does not mean it a athoritative in nature.
What i was asking is if your theory is correct, then there would have been various studies supporting the point you are trying to make, which so far, there aren't any.
You are ignoring the fact that the murder rate were in thousands whilst the rate of death penalty was in the tens. People needs to be constantly reminded of punishment and when the deathe penalty is not imposed often, it sends a message of tolerance to criminals that society is not serious about punishment.
And also, that was the whole point of my whole argument, the death penalty will have no effect if it is not used more often and depending on how the death penalty is used, will affect the crime rate in either a good way or a bad way.
The Death Penalty is a subject i am very passionate about and i am also pursuing the study of criminal law so it has exposed me to many facts. Those information taken was from various textbooks and the part where i placed emphasis on the corrections systems; is based on a present course, American Corrections Institutions that i am presently taking.
>< You're quoting a "lead researcher" for the Heritage Foundation - a conservative think tank... they think of ways to promote a specific agenda.
If one is not simply supporting a political agenda this is more helpful. link
I have to hand it to conservative think tanks though. For a group who thinks "internets" is a series of tubes they sure know how to make sure their articles come first on a Google search.
The Heritage Foundation used those reasearchers because it supports the point they are trying to make. Those researchers however, are also mentioned in various aspects in the study of criminology. Those are the studies thast i took from my criminoloy text that were also on that site.
Those internet articles are not the product of internet search. Check up on any criminology texts. They were found in the internet search because they are wdiely known studies published. Secondly, my textbooks that i use in the pursuit of criminal law, i can google them up and find articles in those books cited from my textbooks. So using the google is in no way a bad idea or pratice. It is the information itself that has to be examined, not how you obtained it. Also, there are many scholarly articles published on various sites which you can google search.
Oh and one last thing, Dezbaksh and all those researchers are the foundation of various studies pertaining to the study of criminology on the death penalty and you can find their articles by googling them.
Last time I checked, killing doesn't bring persons back to life, so the only reason for the death penalty seems to be revenge. You can't give life as a reward, so what right do you have to take life as punishment?
These killers are sick individuals. Throwing them into prison doesn't solve their psychological or chemical problems and neither does killing them. If you were really interested in justice you would support the hospitalization of murderers.
They are really deep-down sick and you are punishing sick people. It is not their fault. If somebody murders, that means he has carried a tendency to murder in him for a long time. It is not that somewhere, out of nowhere, suddenly you murder somebody.
Yes certain people have a tendancy to do certain things. If my father was an addict, for example, then I would have a tendancy toward addiction. And while the tendancy isn't my fault, the fact that I took the drug in the first place is.
And what does that say to others who control their urges? Many, Many people do control them, and to say that you shouldn't punish these people because they can't help it isn't fair to those who resisted the tendancies they were born with.
I don't see the death penalty being any better deterrent than life imprisonment. Life imprisonment is hardly a piece of cake. You're locked up in a single building, you have no privacy, you're unable to determine the course of your life, you're separated from friends and family - for the rest of your life. If these bleak prospects aren't enough to deter someone from committing a serious crime, what will ramping it up to the death penalty do?
Will anyone sit down and think, "OK, well I don't want to die so I wouldn't commit this murder if it entailed a mandatory death sentence. But since it's only life imprisonment, that's a pretty sweet deal, the numbers add up on my cost-benefit analysis, let's do it"?
That's quite silly. The people who will commit a murder knowing it entails life imprisonment are: (1) The ones who think they won't get caught, in which case no amount of deterrent will stop them, and (2) The ones who were in such a fit of rage or had such serious psychological issues that they're incapable of reasoning, in which case they don't even think about the deterrent.
And while you might say that punishment/retribution/revenge is a natural human impulse and that the family of victims want to see the murderer executed, want and should aren't the same thing. A lot of things are natural human impulses, including theft and rape and even murder; we consider humans more advanced than other animals because humans have the ability to control these impulses.
When one life has been tragically cut short, how will cutting short a second life make things better? It just doubles the tragedy. The family of the victim might feel avenged, but how about the family of the murderer? Should they be forced to go through the same ordeal, just so that some people can "feel better"? If you could bring the victim back to life by killing the murderer, then sure, I'd say go for it. But that's not the case. Executing a murderer is just a pointless exercise that creates even more suffering for no gain.
Many people locked up in buildings or given life imprisonment have murdered either while in prison or had ordered executions for those who are responsible for their conviction and incaceration. Also, there are many prison riots caused by violent inmates which sometimes ends up in the deaths of staff and other inmates. You will not be separated from your family and friends because there is still the process of conjugal visits in prison and family, friends and mails are not forbidden.
Punishment when given on a regular basis will have a deterrent effect on the population it is intended to deter. Therefore, people will think twice before they choose to commit a crime and also, the death penalty has been proven to deter the crime rate. That in itself is a clear indication that people are scared of the death penalty which is a form of extreme punishment.
Not all people who commit murders thinks they will not be caught. Some people who commit murder fully knows that they will be caught but they laugh at the law of the land and for them, living in prison is better than living in a free society. Inorder for a charge of murder to be instituted, the prosecution has to prove that there was an intention to kill the person or it was pre meditated. In the absence of this, it will likely be ruled as manslaughter and not murder. And the death penalty is applicable to murder.
Punishment and retribution is a right of the family after there loved ones were taken away from them and no one should tell them that they do not have the right to. Prison is a form of punishment and retribution; in the same way, should we let them walk free then. Prison, even though being a form of punishment is not in itself, a intense form of punishment because if that was the case, then the murder rate would have been deterred and many of the innocent would not have losed their lives. Theft and rape are crimes; punishment and retribution is not illegal for a family who leaves it in the hands of the law.
Cutting short a second life that is responsible for the taking of the first life will make things better because that same second life might be responsible for the taking of a third life as in thee case of Richard Kuklinsi. If the accused has left a family heartbroken then why should we expect to treat him better? As it is already, many rights are given to the accused and not the victim and many instances we tend to forget the pain and cries of the victim begging for his or her life before being killed. Whether or not the accused family is heartbroken or not, does not prevent the law from treating all in a fair manner. We cant bring the victim back to life but we can prevent more from dying at the same hands that already took a life. Unless you can prove that executing a murderer is pointless, then i will just disregard this statement.
I acknowledge your points about the problem of violence in prisons, but I see that as a problem to be solved by attempting to reform the prison system rather than executing the murderers. Simply taking murderers out of the prison population by executing them may well lower the incidence of prison violence, but it'll hardly eliminate it altogether.
I also think that if you offer reducing prison violence as a reason for establishing a mandatory death penalty, you should count the executed people as part of the violence figures. Which practice will lead to overall lower prison casualties and injuries: (1) the number of murderers executed + the results of prison violence/riots in max security institutions in a system with mandatory death penalty, or (2) the number of murderers executed + the results of prison violence/riots in max security institutions in a system with no or optional death penalty? I don't have any figures on hand, but considering the number of murderers that get processed by the court system each year, I'm not sure it will do us utilitarian benefit to execute them all in the hopes of preventing prison violence.
Yes, I'm sure the death penalty is a fearsome deterrent, but is the threat of life imprisonment not enough? I return to a point in my first post: would people rationally choose to go to prison for life? I know there are people who wouldn't mind going to prison for a short time, since they think it's a risk worth taking, or even because it's better than life on the outside. But these are short sentences I'm talking about. Almost every study I've seen on the deterrent effect of the death penalty has suggested that it's no more effective than life imprisonment.
Revenge is not a good basis for justice. Hate begats hate; who wants a legal and justice system, and hence a society, fundamentally rooted in feelings of anger and revenge rather than one rooted in compassion and education? But having said that, it is not true that if we don't execute murderers, we might as well let them walk free. There are multiple possible reasons for having a criminal justice system: deterring potential offenders, punishing actual offenders, rehabilitating offenders, removing offenders from the general population to prevent further criminality, avenging the victims of crime. Revenge and punishment I see as rather pointless; they impose suffering but give very few, if any, benefits. But we both agree that deterrence is important, and that is one major reason why we need prison sentences and the like. People need to be shown that they can't break the law and get away scotch-free.
Yes, there are murderers who will kill again, and executing them is a sure-fire way of ensuring that doesn't happen. But execution doesn't do anything for this scenario that life imprisonment can't do; nobody has escaped from a max security institution. And in the case where an innocent person has been convicted, they will at least be able to keep their life.
And these are some of the reasons why I find execution a pointless exercise. It creates a tragedy for the murderer and their family and friends, but it doesn't perform any vital role that life imprisonment (which is a lesser tragedy) cannot perform.
Well correct me i am wrong, but how many alternatives were implemented inorder to curb the rate of prison violence? The most dangerous prisoners were once put in a super maximum prison to reduce the rate of prison violence but due to the continued rate of prison violence, even Alcatraz had to be closed down. We send people to prison or we try to rehabilitate them but do you think that those mechanisms will help to eliminate the problem as well? Implementing the death penalty will not eliminate it but help to reduce the rate of crime. Crime can never be eliminated but at the same time, it can be prevented and reduced.
I am not sure what you are referring to when you mentioned executed. Are you referring to those placed on the death penalty or are you referring to murder victims in prison? Lets assume that you are referring to the murder victims in prison, implementing the death penalty will help to ensure a level of discipline for those who continue to plot against others in prison or in the free society. Lets say for example, two thugs were in prison for murder, but whilst in prison, they ordered the execution of the key witness for the crown. Upon attempting to execute the key witness for the trial, gunmen or gang members accidentally shot a 10 year old girl in the head whilst walking home from school with her friends. Do you think that the death penalty would have helped to prevent this? This is what i would refer to as being an utilitarian benefit of executing those guilty of murder to prevent violence in the prison world and society.
If the threat of life imprisonment was enough, would murder on the whole continue to be on the rise? Would inmate violence continue to be on the rise? Would the spread of STDS/STIS in prison be on the rise? Would the trafficking of drugs and continued gang membership be on the rise in prison? Some people dont mind going to prison (and i tell you this because i have personally dealt with many) because they feel in prison they have gang activity, trafficking of contraband, free meals and shelter. I can provide you with various studies which proves that the death penalty is a deterrent so that means it is more effective than life imprisonment; which leads me to conclude that if life imprisonment was that effective, then how come the murder rate in New York increased last year and continues to be increasing and this is a state which do not have the death penalty? Those who are parts of gang do not care about what happens to them and takes life imprisonment as a blessing rather than a curse.
That is one of the basis of justice. Even to life imprisonment was designed after the concept of punishment and revenge. Furthermore, the death penalty seeks to prevent the murder of the innocent, which i do not see any form of revenge in. The death penalty is not a form of hate but a tool of social control. I think you are mistaking the death penalty for hatred. It is clearly not the case, as you are misinterpreting it to be. Like i am asking you again, we have tried dealing with criminals by educating them and providing treatment to them in prison. If it was that effective, would the prison population and the rate if recividism continue to be increasing? If according to you, we should remove punishment, then we should abolish the prison system since the prison system itself is a form of punishment. The death penalty is a form of punishment that prevents the killer from striking again and creates a level of fear in the mind of the potential killer expecially when learning of the severity of the punishment that awaits them.
I agree with you that people have not escaped but in the past, how many situations of hostage taking events have occured? How many maximum security prisons had to be shut down due to a high rate of prison violence and riots? Can life imprisonment for a definite yes, prevent a murderer from killing again? I highly doubt that but the death penalty for sure can prevent that from taking place. It is for the very reason that i mentioned those mechanisms that were implemented to ensure that the innocent are not executed. DNA, sentencing guidelines, more than 8 levels of appeals, constitutional rights? In the midst of all of these, if the innocent is convicted, the execution can be put on a hold until the appeal is reviewed by all the levels of appeals and the media itself outlining and exposing any forms of injustice.
It is surprising that you are speaking of the mercy for the accused but yet at the same time you are ignoring the pain of the victim. If the victim's family is the one with a part of their life damaged, then they are the ones that should be given justice. If life imprisonment was as effective as you are claiming it to be, then prison itself would not be an environment of threats, violence, corruption, rapes, diseases and many more controversies.
Crime may possibly be on the rise in certain areas, but murder hasn't in the United States. In the last 50 years it peaks at various points to 9-10 murders per hundred thousand people per year, but has been dropping progressively in the last 20 years to just under 5 murders per hundred thousand people in 2009 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm). Furthermore, US states without the death penalty have slightly lower murder rates than states that do (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty- have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates).
But statistics only give us limited information, of course. The murder rate drop could have been the result of any number of factors, and there could be external factors as to why states without the death penalty have lower murder rates (e.g. maybe these states naturally have fewer murderers, with or without the death penalty). And not being a US citizen/resident, my knowledge of crime and law in the US is quite limited.
My point about counting the executed in violence rates is mainly a way of saying that I don't think executing murderers is a good way of reducing prison violence. It is likely to reduce it to some degree, but the negative impact of executions (ending lives, creating heartbreak) is too much to be worth it. As for the convicted innocent, no matter how rigid the court procedures are, there are bound to be some cases that are judged incorrectly. Humans are fallible. In the roughly 15,000 murders that are committed each year in the US, can anyone truly believe that not a single one of them will be mistakenly pinned on an innocent individual? Even in a court system with 100 levels of appeal, it seems almost inevitable that someone, somewhere, will have been wrongly convicted because there was overwhelming evidence against them even though they were actually innocent. DNA evidence has vindicated the innocence of multiple executed people in the past; who knows what new form of evidence taking in the future will vindicate people today who are convicted on DNA analysis?
Yes, I get your point that in many societies, the criminal justice system was designed with the purpose of punishing the criminal. Hence we see barbaric historical practices like crucifixions and burnings - the idea was to inflict pain on the offender for the sake of inflicting pain. But I think humanity for the large part is evolving past the point of finding joy in inflicting pain (whether physical or emotional) upon others. I don't think it is appropriate for anyone in the 21st century, not even a state, to inflict suffering upon another person for the sole sake of inflicting suffering.
But "we shouldn't have punishment" isn't the same thing as "we shouldn't have penalties for violating the law". Penalties can have a deterrent effect, which is what I think is useful and necessary. The point of these penalties isn't to make the offender suffer (although that is usually an inevitable consequence), but to deter potential offenders from committing the crime. Hence if there are two penalties that both have a similar deterrent effect, one inflicting maximal suffering (death) and the other inflicting lesser suffering (life imprisonment), the lesser should be used, because we're not deliberately trying to inflict suffering.
The death penalty has been a staple of most historical societies, and is a staple of several modern societies. We don't see a marked drop in murder rates in societies that allow for the death penalty compared to similar societies that don't, so its deterrence effect is debatable. But what is undisputable is that execution creates the preventable loss of a human life and also often creates heartbreak for the family of the executed. The death penalty provides a possible (but by no means apparent) benefit on crime rates compared to imprisonment, but a very definite loss on human happiness. Hence I find it less preferable to imprisonment.
I don't see the death penalty in itself as necessarily a form of hatred or revenge. (e.g. I think the death penalty can be useful for primitive societies where secure prisons are not possible.) But when people say that it is legitimised because a victim's family feels their anger is satisfied when they hear the murderer is sentenced to death, that is when I think it is a problem. I'm not in support of satisfying someone's primal lust for revenge, by the death penalty or by any other means, because I think revenge has no place in the legal system of a civilised society. Lust for revenge harms the person seeking revenge, the person whom the revenge is enacted upon, and the rest of society.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything for the victims. I fully sympathise with the families of murder victims, and crime victims in general. The victims' family (and victims themselves in non-murder cases) should be provided with appropriate counselling/treatment. If their breadwinner was the one murdered, the state should ideally provide financial support until they get back on their feet. And there are probably other practical steps that can be taken to lessen their suffering.
Unfortunately the victims' families can never truly be given justice, because true justice is righting the wrong, and when a person is murdered there is nothing the law can do to reverse that. The best the law can do is detain the murderer so he doesn't murder again. But there is everything the law can do to prevent a second unnatural death from occurring: all it takes is not implementing the death penalty.
Really? Because if that was the case, then we would not have an overcrowded prison system and also a pressure in the amount of criminal cases in the judicial system. Thanks for sending me that report. That was the very report i was looking for. Thank you so much for that but also let me remind you that the crime rate increased for the year 2010 as compared to last year so in fact, the crime rate is not deteriorating as you are claiming. Secondly, why would you compare the crime rate between states when there are differences such as geograpical population, laws, size of state, etc. The population we have here might be of a lesser amount than that of somewhere else and also each state has a different level of job availability and economic status.
The murder rate did not drop at all because if that was the case, then we would not have had an increase in the murder rate for the year 2010.
They have tried a lot of mechanisms to put in place but it still has not helped to ease the prison violence in prison. You are concentrating on the negative impact caused by punishing accused but emotions are not worth the amount of innocent lives that will be taken by the actions of these very criminals? People feel heartbreak and cry when their families are being given a life imprisonment but should we feel sorry for them and give them a lighter sentence when they do not feel sorry for themselves? Those cases that are judged incorrectly is enough for grounds to an appeal and if you are claiming that there are cases in which the innocent were executed or convicted, then point to one that has taken place recently and has not been freed. How many people have DNA and The Supreme Court freed and how many of these people have been compensated financially for their wrongful conviction? Even if those murders are pinned, on the innocent, do you think that all it takes is hearsay evidence or baseless assumptions to be admitted as part of evidence in a trial? In third world countries like my country of origin, that happens but not here. Furthermore, do you think that a jury will convict based on DNA evidence alone? Do you think that the judicial system is so weak in its nature that all it takes is for DNA evidence to convict someone? There are more evidence that needs to back up the perceptions created by DNA and those other evidence has to support the logical proof or perception created by DNA.
I understand your point that the death penalty in itself is a form of excessive and brutal in nature but how can it be brutal or exessive if it is proportionate to the level or type of crime committed? Life Imprisonment is a form of punishment so the very basis of the criminal justice system is the method of punishment which is referred to as prison for committing major crimes because even the judicial system has lost all hopes in the reformation of such an individual. I think that the state are charged with the sole of responsibility of protecting the innocent and fighting crime, therefore the crime control model of criminal justice comes into effect. If inflicting serious punishment on the person will prevent future crimes, then i see no negative effects. Because we are living in 21st century does not mean we should abolish our pratices from the 18th or 19th century. Probation, imprisonment, parole all exists in the traditional society. As a matter of fact, traditional society is the foundation for all these methods of punishment or reformation. Should we abandon them then because they are part of traditional society and not modern society?
The whole concept of using the death penalty is to control the rate of crimes, therefore punishment becomes mandatory. The death penalty again, in giving punishing the offender sends out a message to others that no one should kill or hurt another person which will thus serve to deter other potential killers. If life imprisonment was that effective, would we still continue to have an increasing criminal population? Would we continue to have an increased rate of recividism? No form of punishment was designed to deliberately inflict suffering but to deter potential murderers.
The reason why the death penalty has no deterrent effect, according to the scholarly researcher Dezbaksh, is the sole reason, that the death penalty when used often will deter the murder rate but when used at a low rate or hardly being used will not deter crime. For example, states that carry out executions, execute maybe like 12 or less criminals per year. On top of that, these executions are hardly heard of. Do you think that a execution rate of 12 will have effect on a murder rate of 3000? Furthermore, each state has a different population level so it will be pointless to compare states with the same population size. If we should abolish the death penalty because of emotions, then for every life taken by those very murderers, we will be held accountable and responsible for. Also, the criminal justice system is not about emotions. It is about fighting for the rights of the innocent and at the same time, protecting the rights of both accused and victim and treating all in a fair manner and punishing or reforming when necessary but emotions is clearly ruled out.
Even if the victim's family sees the death penalty as a form of revenge, do you think that the court sees it the same way? There are several ways to get help but the whole point i am trying to make is the simple fact that the death penalty is a source of deterring potential criminals and sending a message accross even if the victim's family confuse it with revenge. And furthermore, if we really sympathize with the family of the victim, we will make sure that the lives of their loved ones are not forgotten of and we try to bring the killer to justice.
Executing the killer brings justice to the family of the victim by preventing more people from getting killed. Also, as society progresses, many of those who are incarcerated will be released as part of emergency re entry to society as the prison population continues to grow. As this happens, we will begin to see an increase in crime as well. A killer who kills someone knows that he will be punished but yet does it anyway. Such a person who shows ultimate disrespect for the law can pose a immediate threat to society and even those in prison.
I have not been able to find data supporting your claim that the murder rate has risen in 2010. I did find this FBI preliminary report, which shows a decrease in the murder rate between 2009 and 2010 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009/prelimiucrjan-jun_10_excels/table-3). But even if you are able to produce data showing a rise between these two years, I must remind you that a rising rate means a statistic that has shown the trend of increasing over a period of time. A single blip in the statistic does not indicate a trend; you'd be grasping at straws in saying so. The data I have produced shows the trend of a decreasing murder rate in recent years.
Also, a decrease in murder rates does not imply that the prison system and court system would no longer be overburdened, as you stated. A decrease in murder rates is not indicative of a decrease in the rate of every imprisonable offence (although it is my understanding that crime rates have decreased overall), and if the decrease is not great enough, or there are other factors affecting the efficiency of the prisons and courts, it will not entirely alleviate the burden.
But once again I acknowledge that statistics are of limited use. There are many external factors that could skew statistics, some of which you have mentioned.
It is impossible for anyone to point to a case where someone was clearly wrongfully convicted and has not been freed, because the very nature of a wrongful conviction is that you do not know they are innocent. Obviously, if the courts have discovered that they are innocent, they would have been freed. In the last 2 decades, over 250 people have been exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/How_many_people_have_been_exonerated_through_DNA_testing.php) - although this includes all convictions, not only murder convictions. But how many more have not been acquitted, and of those, how many are wrongfully convicted of murder? By definition we do not know, but it would be rather naive to believe that every single wrongful conviction gets discovered and corrected.
It is possible that the death penalty will have a better deterrent effect if it is applied more frequently, but that is something we cannot know because there is no major modern society with a fair justice system that routinely applies the death penalty to every murder case. Speculations on what the crime rates for a society like that would be are just that: speculation. (The fact that no modern society is like that, and in fact most jurisdictions have abolished or are decreasing the use of the death penalty, even in non-democratic states like China, might say something about the views of international experts and policymakers on the effectiveness of the death penalty.) Furthermore, for every study suggesting that the death penalty is a deterrent, there is at least another study suggesting that it is not.
I have never said that something should be abandoned for the sole reason that it is traditional and not modern - that would be a preposterous claim. What I did say is that while the inflicting of suffering was the point of many archaic criminal justice systems, the modern system should be concerned with deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation where possible. The point I'm still trying to get across is that punishment and deterrence are two different concepts.
Punishment is inflicting suffering on someone who has done something wrong for the sake of inflicting suffering
Deterrence is inflicting suffering on someone who has done something wrong so that other people will learn from the example and not commit the same wrong
We don't want to inflict suffering for the sake of inflicting suffering. Hence when there are two sentencing options that produce a similar deterrence effect, we should pick the one that inflicts less suffering. The death penalty has not been shown to be more effective than life imprisonment in deterring murder, hence we should choose life imprisonment.
I should have been specific. The murder rate for the state of New York, a state without the death penalty has increased this year with a higher rate of murder than it was in 2009. In the time that the death penalty was performed on a regular basis, the crime rate in society was at a lower level. Upon the decreasing rate of applying the death penalty, the crime rate has risen. That trend you are showing me is one in which the crime rate was high but the execution rate was at a rate of 12 per year with a murder rate of thousands. Do you believe that such an execution rate will have effect on the criminal population. I have previously studied the statistics you sent me in a previous but different argument.
A decrease in the murder rate even if it does not help to solve the overburdening of caseload in the courts and prison system will definitely help to decrease the amount of criminal cases filed and if the death penalty is effective at deterring crime, then it certainly decreases the prison population, court prosecutions process and many more stages of the criminal justice process. The other factors as far as i am aware that affects the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is abuse of power and issues of budgeting. Abuse of power can result in various appeals to ensure the protection of inmates, suspects, or victim's rights.
If those factors affect the reliability of the factual results produced by the statistics, then the results should no longer be considered reliable and there would be various arguments which proves the study or statistic at issue unreliable.
There are cases in which those convicted were later freed but the whole point is, have you heard of someone that was falsely accused of committing a crime in the 21st century and then wrongfully incarcerated and that too without an appeal? Suspects are evaluated by a jury and a judge and evidence produced has to be within procedural guidelines. Any strong objections or complaints raised by the accused during trial has to be properly tend to and or investigated to prevent judicial negligence thereby resulting in a violation of constitution rights. Also, if people are wrongfully convicted, how come they have not expressed their opinions through the media and the media is always a source of highlighting official misconduct? DNA is one of the very resourceful methods of producing criminal liability or determining criminal guilt so therefore it is one of the methods that helps to prevent wrongful convictions, a tool society never had the chance to develop years ago. Perhaps you are forgetting that those wrongully convicted was in a time of judicial disparity, lack of forensic tools and also abuse of power. DNA, is applied in every murder case to determine guilt and even though it is effective, it also has to be supported by other arguments.
If i recall, the study i interpreted to you was carried out in a time of judicial and social corruption and yet it deterred crime. So what makes you think that in a modern and more liberal and developed society that it will not deter crime? These studies were carried out on actual reality executions highly publicized in the media and how it affected the criminal populations. Today, it is one of the most valuable studies in criminology. As i mentioned before, if it worked in a less modern society then it will work in a more mordern society. No study has never been produced that affects the credibility of the study i produced which is why it became one of the well known studies in criminology.
Even though i agree with part of the argument you are proposing, i also believe that deterrence and incapacitation are forms or products of punishment itself whilst the product of rehabilitation is reformation. Punishment and deterrent are similar components because the product of punishment is deterrence and as a matter of fact, one of the correctional goals of punishment is deterrence under which is listed incarceration.
Punishment is not inflicting suffering for the sake of inflicting. It is for the sake of deterrence and it is through a judicial procedure. It is a form of social control which serves to prevent violence and execessive crimes in a society whose duty is to protect the innocent and prevent perpretators from striking again and prosecuting them.
Deterrence is a form and also one of the aims of the punishment ideology so punishment is not for the sake of inflicting sufferings. I can produce various textbooks to verify my argument.
I do not understand why you are implying that punishment and deterrence are two separate ideologies when deterrence is the goal of punishment. Therefore your opinion on punishment which is for the sake of inflicting suffering is in no way a true theory. The death penalty again has not only shown but proved to deter murder so therefore i wpuld suggest you reconsider your closing arguments.
Firstly, are you using the change over a single interval, in a single state, of a single nation, as evidence that the universal topic of the death penalty should be applied more regularly?
If you had said "the murder rate overall decreased where and when the death penalty was in effect, and increased where and when it was abolished", and provided some evidence for it, that would be a pretty presentable point.
But "the fact that the murder rate for this particular abolitionist state has risen a bit from 2009 to 2010, regardless of the fact that it was falling in most previous years, and regardless of the fact that it was falling in most other states, shows how much we need the death penalty" is hardly a convincing argument.
Secondly, your edited statistics are no more accurate than your earlier stats in showing that the murder rate has risen. In the 00s decade, during which the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional in New York, the NY murder rate floated somewhere between 4 and 5 murders per 100,000 people per year. Back during the 70s, the last decade where the death penalty was legal in NY, the rate was around 9-10 per 100,000 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm).
Thirdly, your statement of "In the time that the death penalty was performed on a regular basis, the crime rate in society was at a lower level" is unsubstantiated as far as I can tell. At no point in the modern history of New York has the death penalty been applied regularly to cases of murder. From 1900-1963, there were a total of 641 executions for murder and murder-related crimes in NY - around 10 executions per year (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/ESPYFile.xls). That's nowhere near "regular" in the sense of "if you murder someone, you can expect to be executed for it", which is what this topic is referring to.
On the topic of the innocent - The Innocence Project lists 80 people who were wrongfully convicted from 1990-2008, and were luckily exonerated later. That's hardly "a time of judicial disparity, lack of forensic tools and also abuse of power". (They also, of course, had appealed to the media and to other public places like the internet, which is why I was able to find their details.)
Now consider the limited funds and hence limited reach of such organisations as the Innocence Project. Consider also cases in which DNA evidence does not come into play, for example in trials of crimes that allegedly occurred a long time ago and all scientific evidence was lost. Or crimes where the criminal left no identifiable DNA (this occurs more often than shows like CSI would have us believe). And consider cases of possible DNA mixup where multiple people were present at the crime scene but only one of them were the murderer. And also that DNA analysis is not 100% accurate: it can only narrow down the possible suspects to a very very low number, not down to one particular person.
Can you honestly believe from the bottom of your heart that the modern US justice system, operating by very accurate but not 100% accurate technology, and manned by very careful but not 100% infallible people, and working from evidence that is usually highly incriminating but sometimes not proving undoubtable guilt, is simply incapable of ever slipping up, even once?
If there is hard statistical data showing a society with a relatively accurate justice system using modern technological methods like DNA as evidence, and applied the death penalty regularly, and was able to deter crime this way, that would be very interesting. But I'm unaware of any such society and I'm quite critical of the idea that such a society exists. If the death penalty has been proven to deter murder, as you say, this proof has yet to reach the mainstream academic community, as there is nothing near a consensus, either in popular or in academic circles, over its deterrent effect.
So you agree that suffering should not be inflicted for the sole sake of inflicting suffering - then we are on the same page. Quite a lot of people think that criminals should be punished for the sake of punishing them, whether or not it deters anyone; I had thought you were one of them. The definitions of terms I used were a simplistic formulation of those found in texts such as (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/), with differing points enhanced. As you see through the course of my arguments, I have affirmed that they are closely related concepts, and that one is likely to entail the other. But distinguishing between the concepts is essential because my argument cannot proceed if my usage of the terms is ambiguous.
My point in picking out this crucial distinction is that a criminal - even a murderer - shouldn't be given any more suffering than strictly necessary to reduce crime rates. It shouldn't be done "for the sake of justice", it shouldn't be done because the victim's family would feel better, etc etc. If you agree about that part, then that's great. And human life, being such a valuable thing, is not to be terminated lightly at all. The conclusion I thus draw is that if the death penalty hasn't shown to be definitively more successful in lowering crime rates than other penalties (and it hasn't; if it has been, our controversy over statistics wouldn't exist), we should use other penalties.
I think it should be classified into manslaughter (your (2) statement) and murder (your (1) statement) Manslaughter is not premeditated, thus i think that it does not deserve such serious punishment; however a planned MURDER is cold, horrific and inhuman - the killer does not deserve to live.
The death penalty do give the courts the authority to punish but so does the sentencing of lifetime. This is not an extra slippery slope because defendants have more rights than a victim in a criminal trial. Defendants even have the right of post conviction appeals even before the trial process has concluded.
First of all: Life in jail is worse/more productive than instant death. In jail, the most the killer can do is contemplate their actions and possibly change them self into a better person. Also, the death penalty is the easy way out for both the government and the felon because the government would instantly get rid of a threat to society and the felon doesn't need to think that much about his crimes, besides the time he/she has on death row. Also, to end this all nicely, I'll quote Gandhi: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
In jail, life is worse than being productive. There are prison riots and sometimes many inmates who are given the life sentence ends up killing other inmates in jail. In some cases, for murderers in gangs who are sent to prison, give their buddies orders to execute witnesses pertaining to the trial. What gandhi said was noble but not every word applies to society as it is today. What Gandhi said was in the 18th century, we are now in the 21 st century.
This is a tricky subject. I do feel that those who murder in cold blood would be more than deserving of the death penalty. The problem with capital punishment, however, is that it is permanent. If it is later determined that the convicted felon was, in fact, innocent (as is actually quite common), then the state would have just murdered an innocent human being.
Therefore, with that risk in mind, I do not feel that the death penalty is suitable for any convicted felon, as there is always doubt as to whether or not they committed the crime.
If they did commit the crime, life in jail will separate them from society.
If they did not commit the crime, they can be released from jail.
admittedly, this is a problem with the conviction process rather than the punishment process- but since the two are so strongly linked both should be considered.
implementing death penalty for a killer will only leaves the wrong message to the society: a killer who kills should be killed. Killing someone because someone else is killed by that person is clearly not a justice. It's a revenge.
and some sadistic killer kills not because they are basically evil, they are just mentally ill. and killing it's not a solution for them. they need rehabilitation, not a death sentence.
Implementing the death penalty will send a message to others that no one should have the right to kill another person. This is in no way a wrong message if it is a message of deterrence.
If a killer is mentally ill, the laws prohibit the state from executing that killer and besides the court has ordered that no mentally retarded or juveniles be executed. You have some people who is not mentally ill or claim they are but in fact, they perfectly understand what they are doing. These are people who will kill and has no fear for the law nor anyone. These are people who pose an immediate threat to society.
I believe that no one should die on this earth. This may sound ridiculous but this includes Hitler and other extreme murderes out there in this world. This world is a gift from God (if you believe in God) and we as humas therefore don't have the RIGHT to put somebody's life on the line. We do not control other's faith, only God.
Besides, why would you want to kill a murderer. Let that demon suffer in prison.
No it should not. Although i am not denying that in some cases (multiple homicide ect) it is not a viable option, however there are some flaws with this.
The first is that is does not allow for rehabilitation. A man may get involved in crime and end up killing someone. That does not mean his life is worthless. That does not mean he cannot be rehabilitated.
Equally, a woman may kill her repeatedly abusive husband. Yes, she should serve time, however how is it fair to end her life because it was the only way she saw out of a situation.
Secondly, it is a sign of a less civilised society. Most MEDC countries do not use the death penalty, the US being one of the only ones that does. Other countries that use the death penalty genarally do so because their lack of infrastructre prevents them from detaining the criminal successfully. Once this infrastructure is established, they move on to less barbaric forms of criminal justice.
Regardless of your religios beliefs, the bible is suposedly one of the texts our society was formed upon. The bible states both that thou shalt not kill, but also, that one must forgive. If we kill our criminals, we see no opertunity for them to right their ways.
The bible also states that we must move away from the "old law" of an eye for an eye.
My primary point, however, is that it devalues life. When the government kills people, it sends out the message that killing is not of great importance. That life can be taken away like that. We need to preserve the sanctity of life.
How many people are given rehabilitation and still commits murder upon entry to society or whilst in prison? If rehabilitation was that successful, do you think society would have so much recvidism? The problem with rehabilitation is many people can fool the system in making them think that what they want them to think.
Believe me, you havent read about some women who have committed brutual and multiple murders. Killing an abusive husband can be a form of self defence and also the death penalty will not be applicable to such cases. Also, that is why a woman can get help if she is being abused. It is not like her husband will be watching her moves 24/7 so that she does not get help.
Firstly, many people say that Europe does not have the death penalty so the U.S should not. But what they do not know, is the simple fact that the crime rate there is higher than the crime rate in the U.S. We have the sentencing guidelines to prevent disparity, fingerprinting, facial and voice recognition software, DNA, more than 8 levels of appeal process for the accused and yet you say it is sign of a less civilized society? Which less civilized society would have these mechanisms set in place? Most countries do not have the death penalty because they do not have these tools or mechanisms which makes them a less civilized society.
I do not believe in mixing the religion with the law so i will not debate this point but dont expect what was written thousands or hundreds of years ago to solve those issues which we now face in modern society. We tried doing rehabilitation, did it work? We tried imprisonment or in some cases, forgiving them but did it work?
If you are executing a murderer who may kill other people, i do not see in any way, why it devalues life. Killing a murderer sends out a message that no one but the law has the right to take a life and that all should respect human life and the law.
I believe that the final decision should be given to the bereaved; those affected by the murder. It may be argued that the grief will affect their judgement, but that is the effect of the matter; that only the bereaved feel the true extent of the crime.
But if they can find it in themselves to pardon the murderer his life, who can rightfully deny them?
no not for everyone who kills what about people who kill in self defense or people who kill accidentally or people with mental problems or who are drugged and hallucinating or children or say.. killing someone who has raped them or hurt a family member, while some of these reasons would definitely require being locked up the death penalty does not seem right for alot of situations
I see no point in letting someone live who does not want to live, or letting someone die who does not want to die.
I support the option to commit suicide, you know medical assisted for those with long term illnesses, I wouldn't do it, but I can't be in others shoes. So in this matter where the felon has, assuming, no long term illness like cancer or some painful disease, I am firmly in the belief that the honour and integrity of mankind can be upheld by the most just procedure in this case, incarceration.
If we kill the murderer, then were no better than the murderer. As humans, we need to work together to form a better civilazation. Where we can all live together in equality and peace.
There are different conditions. Sometimes innocent people are sent to jail and it isn't right to have them killed, obviously. Other times, the offense could have been wrong and maybe the charge should have been manslaughter instead of murder. There are so many things that can go wrong in the justice system. If it was self defense, that person doesn't deserve to be killed. If it was an accident, the person does not deserve to be killed. I think only certain people deserve to have the death penalty. You have to be really bad and I don't think murder is simply bad enough. Nobody really deserves to have their life taken away, and who are you to sentence someone to their death?
There may be a situation where the death penalty is not relevant, for example someone being raped pushes the person off them and the person hits his head and dies. Why should she be put to death for defending herself
I don't think the death penalty should be mandatory for people that kill people because really we would be doing the same exact thing they did to get in trouble for the first place. That would make us hypocrites. Why would we kill people to show people killing people is wrong? That makes absolutley no sense whatsoever.
