First off, let me just say that I believe in the death penalty 100%. I think it is philosophically and morally justified to execute anyone who has murdered another human being. There are few mitigating circumstances that excuse this behavior.

When someone does something wrong, they have to make up for it completely. If a person take a life, the only way to make up for it is to forfeit theirs.

However, we have one major problem: application.

People have, and will, be executed even though they are innocent of the crime. We may never know, 100%, if someone has or has not committed the crime of murder. There is no way to make up for the mistake, there is no way to bring a person back to life.

Unless we can come up with a system that almost always guarantees a fair trial with a correct verdict, I don't think it is right to put innocent people at risk.

Right now, though, I am not convinced that our system is accurate enough to make me comfortable with execution. If we could get it to 90-99% accuracy, I would be fine. But it looks abit more like 60-70% accuracy at this point.

In fact mudkipz, many people would prefer the death penalty of life in jail. An the people put in jail have a very small chance to get out, next to none in fact. I don't think you understand that life in jail means LIFE in jail WITHOUT parole, so they cannot committ further crimes. In addition, the way you talk about liberals sickens me, you are the kind of person that intelligent conservatives rue, people like you give them a "bad name".

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the death penalty deters crime. The rest of your "argument" here is merely vengeance disguised as "justice".

Justice is only a concept, but it's an important one. Punishing those who do evil creates a deterrent and solidifies the values that keep people behaving properly. It's one of the main things that allows us to function as a society.

Most other first-world countries don't have the death penalty, but have lower rates of crime, just pointing that out.

(I'm for it for moral reasons, against for practical, in case you were wondering.)

"Capital punishment is what is keeping America alive. Without it, we would all be dead. Of course, no state really enforces it with the appeals and the parole and stuff that basically lets murderers scape by while people who didn't do anything get accused, tried, and convicted for nothing"

Your argument here is completely convoluted, and you just contradicted yourself over the course of just two sentences! How could it possibly be true that "capital punishment is what is keeping America alive" if basically (in your opinion) "no state really enforces it"??

If anything, this kind of "argument" is an argument for abolishing the death penalty, since it isn't used uniformly across the entire country. It certainly doesn't seem like the portions of the USA that don't have a death penalty are "dying".

animal bashers?? people who hurt animals should be killed too?? maybe we should start with what crimes warrant the death penalty.

I think your argument is part of why the death penalty should be abolished. The government makes errors in releasing people who are still dangerous and in capturing people who are actually innocent.

Yes, the death penalty should be banned, I have no idea why they still invoke this penalty. You can see why the death penalty should be banned by looking at a single argument.

1. Some people think it is worse living in prison in life then dying.

2. Some people think it is worse dying then living in prison for life.

3. Therefore, dying and living in prison are probably morally equal.

4.Living in jail for life costs less money then the death penalty.

5. This money which goes to the death penalty which could be spent in prison rises the americans tax payments.

6. Whenever the death penalty is performed instead of life in prison, the American is paying more tax then he needs to.

7. The American should not have to pay more tax then he needs to because of someone else's actions.

8. Therefore, the death penalty should be banned.

A few figures to support my argument:

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

In addition, it is evident that the death penalty does not deter murder rates. In a chard found on: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty- have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout, it shows that the murder rate is higher in death penalty states in the last 15 or so years. The percent dwindles around 10%, which may seem small at first but is actually pretty large when considering all of the deaths. So death penalty somehow increases murder rates, maybe a survey will help us understand why. On blurtit.com, their is a survey that shows 55% of people would prefer the death penalty to life in jail. Why? because life in jail is a plainly bleak existence. So what are the reasons for the death penalty again? Oh yeah, their arent any.

We can NEVER return to the days of vigilante justice, which was MUCH more capable of hanging the wrong person than our current system is.

"What needs to be done is reform. There needs to be less appeals."

Riiiight...less appeals basically equals "guilty until proven innocent", which is NOT what this country was founded on, period. If a conviction is worth it's weight, then it's worthy of further scrutiny of the appeals process. We're talking about a human life here yanno...ugh...

"I would love to see the statistics. What you also miss is a lot of guilty people get let off deathrow."

LOL...hello?? You make a wild claim like that with absolutely NO support?! Please...

As for your "statistics":

"DNA Tests Prove Justice Has Failed"

"Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, 33, spent nearly half his life in a New York prison for a rape and murder he did not commit. DNA testing cleared Deskovic and he was released Sep. 20 from prison."

"In 2004, Ryan Matthew, convicted for the murder of a local convenience store owner in Louisiana, escaped the death penalty after prosecutors dropped all charges on the basis of DNA testing results."

"Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented at least 38 executions carried out in the United States in spite of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt since capital punishment was restored in the mid-1970s."

"Moreover, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented 123 death-row inmates who, since 1973, have been exonerated and freed before their executions."

"The staff of the CWC pioneered the investigation and litigation of wrongful convictions, relying a great deal on DNA testing. Their work proving the innocence of 11 men sitting on death row in the U.S. state of Illinois was a driving force behind former Governor George H. Ryan's decision to suspend executions in Illinois in January, 2001."

"The Innocence Project, which worked to free Deskovic, only handles cases where post-conviction DNA tests can yield conclusive proof of innocence. To date, it has helped exonerate 184 people, proving that wrongful convictions are not rare."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/ 0921-08.htm

-In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review that found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed."

"Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed, Judge Says"

"'In the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood,' the judge, Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court in Boston, wrote in a decision allowing a capital case to proceed to trial.

He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row based on DNA and other evidence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/national/12DEAT.html

-Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented 38 executions carried out since the mid-1970s where there was compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Another 130 death row inmates were exonerated, instead of executed, between 1973-2008 due to emerging evidence, including DNA analysis. A smaller number of people have been exonerated posthumously. The Death Penalty Information Center estimates for every seven executions, one death row inmate is exonerated.

"Innocence and the Death Penalty"

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

BTW, all of this evidence was freely available in this very thread previously, from me.

Cost- "Without the trials and appeals, death penalty cases would be much cheaper than confining inmates for the rest of their lives." So are you saying that in order to prevent costs we should just kill people without trials or appeals? The fact that life sentences cost less is due to the fact that they are treated no differently than the general prison population and have limited appeals (this is because while the convicted person is alive, the possibility of a wrongful incarceration can be rectified, whereas death sentences cannot.). The whole point of unlimited appeals is to try to explore all possible evidence before an irreversible decision is made. If the death penalty were simply abolished, there would be no endless chain of appeals and therefore cost would decrease.

Morality - "When the government makes the decision it is based on evidence, logic and non-bias." The fact that the death penalty is considered makes the government inherently illogical in this aspect. There is no gain to be had by killing a person besides emotional satisfaction. No crimes are undone and there is no punishment or hope of redemption for the convicted. The government's job is not to satisfy the feelings of its people by killing the citizens many people would consider to be "bad."

Deterrence - "The fear of death doesn't deter because there isn't a fear of death.. there isn't even death." Since there is no fear of death as you say, why bother having a death penalty? The fact that there are limitless appeals brings us back to a first argument. You need to have unlimited appeals to make sure that the person who you are executing is the right person. The ability to appeal is very important in death penalty cases, and their existence is not a legitimate way to excuse the ineffectiveness of a death penalty system.

Your reasoning is solid. I agree that the people who are killed are mostly innocent people and that those killed by the death penalty are almost certainly guilty of the crime. We differ in our ideological basis whereby I believe that even a serial killer's human life is precious. I believe that people are essentially good but their view can become twisted and perverted and they lose control and basic morality. Society should be protected by all means from such people ie, life sentences, I only wish that their lives could be spared in the hope that some good may come from them. Thanks for the debate

I think its indisputable that the only justification for taking a life is to save a life.

The death penalty is sometimes claimed to save lives through deterrence. However, with life in prison or pretty much any other severe sentence, the benefit to a murderer of killing someone is already far outweighed by the cost. Therefore, murderers are beyond rational cost/benefit calculation and adding to the cost will not create further deterrence.

Thus, it has been demonstrated that the death penalty is not justified.

I agree, but I guess my questions are: 1. Does the death penalty deter evil more than life in prison? and 2. Is it wrong to kill someone in the name of a concept we invented?

Many, many people have already been exonerated AFTER being convicted of a capital crime. Just because the prosecution says that you are guilty doesn't make it so.

Why would you prefer people to be killed rather than jailed away from society so that their harm is neutralised?

Also, it's actually more expensive to execute someone in the United States than to support them for the rest of their life- it's ridiculously impractical, and why waste more resources?

If the death penalty deters murder (as you claim) then why does Europe have a lower murder rate even though they've outlawed the death penalty?

The death penalty has no place in modern society. It is a primitive, ineffective system based on emotion rather than logic.

1- Cost - It costs way more to put someone to death than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives. About 10 times as much. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

2- Morality - If it's not acceptable for people to kill people, what makes it ok for the government to kill people? The state-sanctioned killing of a country's own citizens is a hallmark of third world nations. State run executions are done in the interest of political gain (usually occurs in dictatorships) or emotional fulfillment (such is the case in America). Either way, nothing is undone with the killing of a prisoner. To quote Gandhi: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

3- Deterrence - The fear of death doesn't deter anymore crime than the fear of life imprisonment does. The people who commit crimes that deserve such heavy punishments don't think about the consequences. If they did, then they probably wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. Also, the death penalty in the US isn't a painful, public spectacle. The criminals have no shame or pain to fear. The death penalty may have deterred crime in the 17 or 1800's, but it is simply out of place in modern society.

4- Accuracy - No justice system is perfect, so it is unwise to assign punishments that cannot be reversed. With life in imprisonment, judicial mistakes can be rectified. With death they cannot

Disclaimer: This is a philosophy I am trying out. I have no guarantees that it is correct.

Justice in terms of punishment is something that humans have decided is necessary, but it's just a concept. A murderer being killed doesn't change what happened, it just satisfies people's need for revenge, and fulfills our society's concept of "justice". But what really happened? One person died, then another person died. That's it. Of course, we have guaranteed that the second person can't hurt anyone else anymore, but we can come close to guaranteeing that with a very high security prison.

To me, the system's job is one thing: To prevent a similar crime from happening again, not to fulfill a concept that we have invented.

Again, this is just a theory of mine. I may or may not believe it myself. But it kind of makes sense to me.

I disagree with all three of your points, but the most telling point is the one you ignored, accuracy. The fact is that we as fallible humans have yet to devise a system that determines guilt with certainty. Death is irreversible and an innocent person who gets executed won't even get the satisfaction of hearing you say "oops".

The death penalty is not used for what it is supposed to be used for.

We will kill a man that shoots a man sleeping with his wife but we will not kill a man that has murdered hundreds of women because he can tell you where a few skulls may be.

Our Prisons house people that do not need to be locked up as they are not threats to society and then complain they had no room for the molester or rapist. Now they are back on our streets and will probably kill their next victim as we have seen over and over again.

Prisons are for people that can not function in our society without menacing other citizens and the death penalty is for those that have committed horrible murders against other human beings.

We can not change our entire prison system but we can stop executing people based on the fact they have nothing to give us in return for their life.

Examples: Scott Peterson is going to die on death row however Gary Ridgeway (Green River Killer) will spend life in prison because he could tell you where he buried someone 25 years ago. Scott Peterson deserves his fate but he could have received life in prison had he just killed a few more people.

If we are not going to use it for serial killers the why do we use it at all?

If one commits a murder, they are for sure the scum of the Earth. If one commits more than one, hell has been specially reserved for them. But in real life, who are we to judge whether someone should live or die. That's an awfully big responsibility on the judges. Rather they should be forced (if convicted of course) to contribute to society, while remaining in prison. You kill someone, fine. You still have the right to appeal, but you must work as a slave or close to that status for the duration of your sentence. It's illogical how we would just lock up a killer, to waste tax dollars rotting in prison, or to kill the person, doing unnecessary things like say giving the person antiseptics before a lethal injection.

Ah, bummer, try to check that movie out, it's a fun watch :)

I'm not trying to be rude. All that I'm saying is that it's hard to tell when a case is definite. Emotions can get in the way, the defendant can have a shitty lawyer, etc. I'm just saying that because of all the possible variables that can confound the results, it's too risky.

i don't want my tax money used to kill someone who was wrongly convicted.

Once again, how can you know for sure? There are a LOT of cases where people think that they know for sure, but it turns out they convicted person is innocent.

How do you know that it's proven guilty beyond all doubt? That's what the Jury's there for, and they mess up a LOT

Haha, yeah, hasn't been a single false conviction.... Here's the part you're missing: Texas doesn't allow official investigations into cases where people have been executed. Also, there's an estimated 30% margin of error in terms of innocent people being executed.

Also also, 10,000 Executions? That's a surprisingly high number seeing as how there have only been 1191 executions in the COUNTRY since 1976 back when execution became legal. (actual numbers for texas: 448)

Also also also, it isn't just the state law that comes into play, it's also federal law. If the prisoner passes through the State collateral review, they can apply for Federal habaes corpus. The court process is long and expensive.

The death penalty is useless deterrent of crime because in the states that have them, they are not any more inclined to commit a crime because the threat of death penalty particularly if it is murder. The death penalty is scam because it assuages the self perception of vengeance in the victims eyes. It is a waste of time and money.

The majority of countries have abolished the death penalty. Most executions took place in these 14 countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, US, Pakistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Japan, Yemen, Indonesia, Libya and Sudan. I am against the death penalty because we have an imperfect justice system in the U.S. Mistakes are inevitable and not worth any perceived benefit. The debate was formulated using the word America but I think it more appropriate to say should the U.S. ban the death penalty since the U.S. does not have claim to all of America--North, South etc.

First off, killing by a person, an army or the state is wrong. Secondly, innocent people are found on death row periodically and some of them have been killed already. Life in prison would guarantee that innocents are not killed.

"you have presented ONE case of false execution."

Wrong again, there have been many, many, many more cases that that:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0921-08.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/national/12DEAT.html

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/additional-innocence-information#Released

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/causes-wrongful-convictions

"Even if there has only been 1,196 people executed (which I find very unlikely)"

My numbers are correct GOPer...quit denying them!

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/prefurman/all.htm

http://www.txexecutions.org/history.asp

You don't even appear to know the real reasons why TX has had so many executions:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/execution/readings/texas.html

LOL...why am I not surprised that you are undaunted by actual facts?? You've already stated above that the real facts of the matter will never change your mind on this issue. Give it up wing-nut...I'm DONE wasting my time with the ignorant likes of you.

Look, your arguing with a meteorologist (not that you knew that until now).

The odds of an average person living in the USA being struck by lightning in a given year is 1:700,000. In the USA, between 9-10% of those struck die...for an average of 40-50 deaths per year (there were 28 in 2008).

According to The Innocence Project, a U.S. DOJ & Columbia Law School study estimates a 5% failure rate in the U.S. justice system, which suggests as many as 100,000 falsely convicted prisoners. Other reports place the estimate as high as 10% or 200,000 falsely convicted prisoners.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/PyOGSDDCI1Q-innocence-project-wrongfully-convicted-man.aspx

Give it up...

"violence rates of ALL kinds are lower outside of the USA in countries with no death penalty"

Countries that don't have the death penalty have LOWER crime rates. Also, within the USA, murder rates are consistently lower in states that don't have capital punishment.

The USA has the fifth highest murder rate in the world:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders

India is number one, and they still have capital punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_Penalty_World_Map.svg

It's already been proven that the costs to try & convict a death penalty case far & away costs more than trying & convicting a life without parole case (including the money that it takes to house the prisoner afterwards).

Very logical, I agree, the family or friends would be a more reliable source because they are less deluded than the person who thought it was right to kill others. This isn't to say that the murderer's verbal accounts of his own experience could not also be valuable information to piece together the puzzle.

Ok, so we should weigh up the good and bad that comes from it. It has deterred at least some people from killing others. However it has led to the deaths of many more people (all the murderers) compared to the number deterred.

"Do we really want to keep Charles Mansons in BTK Killers alive in jails with the chance of escape." I believe the chance of escape is remote especially considering the amount of security provided for such high profile cases.

"Those researchers were speculating that 38 people have been wrongfully executed. None of the cases were officially proved to involve someone who was wrongfully executed."

"1987 Stanford Law Review study- 'found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death'- key phrases: SOME EVIDENCE + COULD HAVE."

Look, it's pretty obvious to all here that you're in denial mode. The FACT is that people have been put on death row for crimes that they haven't committed, and some of them in recent years have been lucky enough to have been exonerated. If you don't want to believe that this has happened in the past (and that it's all just something that has happened recently), then so be it...continue to put your head in the sand & see if I care.

"When people have been put on death row and found innocent, the appeals process worked"

...now that we have DNA evidence that is...and what about before that?? You don't care...that's what!

"Until the US Supreme Court has enough evidence to say that they have killed an innocent person, they will not officially declare a wrongful execution."

Oh, so now you're a Supreme Court expert?? LOL...give us all a break...

"if they were against capital punishment, it would have been abolished the day this country was established."

LOL...thanks for admitting that you have absolutely ZERO proof of how the Founders viewed capital punishment. I appreciate it!

"it is irrational to say that it has a zero deterrent effect. If a killer is killed, he can never kill again"

...and the same thing would be true if that person was given life without parole, period.

"it has never been proved that that has occurred"

...in your own closed mind that is...ugh...

"then give me their names."

Sure:

"DNA Tests Prove Justice Has Failed"

"Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, 33, spent nearly half his life in a New York prison for a rape and murder he did not commit. DNA testing cleared Deskovic and he was released Sep. 20 from prison."

"In 2004, Ryan Matthew, convicted for the murder of a local convenience store owner in Louisiana, escaped the death penalty after prosecutors dropped all charges on the basis of DNA testing results."

"Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented at least 38 executions carried out in the United States in spite of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt since capital punishment was restored in the mid-1970s."

"Moreover, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented 123 death-row inmates who, since 1973, have been exonerated and freed before their executions."

"The staff of the CWC pioneered the investigation and litigation of wrongful convictions, relying a great deal on DNA testing. Their work proving the innocence of 11 men sitting on death row in the U.S. state of Illinois was a driving force behind former Governor George H. Ryan's decision to suspend executions in Illinois in January, 2001."

"The Innocence Project, which worked to free Deskovic, only handles cases where post-conviction DNA tests can yield conclusive proof of innocence. To date, it has helped exonerate 184 people, proving that wrongful convictions are not rare."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/ 0921-08.htm

-In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review that found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed."

"Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed, Judge Says"

"'In the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood,' the judge, Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court in Boston, wrote in a decision allowing a capital case to proceed to trial.

He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row based on DNA and other evidence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/national/12DEAT.html

-Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented 38 executions carried out since the mid-1970s where there was compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Another 130 death row inmates were exonerated, instead of executed, between 1973-2008 due to emerging evidence, including DNA analysis. A smaller number of people have been exonerated posthumously. The Death Penalty Information Center estimates for every seven executions, one death row inmate is exonerated.

"Innocence and the Death Penalty"

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"In the United States, guilty beyond reasonable doubt is an extremely high standard"

...and yet dozens & dozens of people have already been PROVEN to have been wrongfully convicted of a crime that they NEVER committed.

"The founding fathers, were major supporters of the death penalty"

...says who??

"Its not really a matter of doing to criminals what they did to other people, its more a matter of giving them the maximum punishment for a terrible crime"

...which is why I and many others favor life without parole, period.

"Some researchers have shown that the United States, a country with capital punishment, has a higher crime rate than Great Britain, a country without capital punishment. What has to be taken into consideration, though, is not that capital punishment increases murder rates, but that it is imposed because of higher murder rates."

There's absolutely ZERO evidence that having a death penalty statute causes a lower crime rate, period. These kind of laws are NO deterrent!

"In order to decrease crime, the government should decrease guns in circulation"

We are in agreement here.

"If we assume that complete and utter protection for members of society cannot have a price, then it is accurate to say that the death penalty is priceless and worth much more than alternatives."

At what cost do you put ONE human life that is snuffed out WRONGFULLY by the govt.??

Look violence rates of ALL kinds are lower outside of the USA in countries with no death penalty, period.

"Anti-American thoughts - Ban the death penalty altogether so that convicts get more rights and America takes one step closer to hell."

Wow, calling something "Anti-American" without any direct evidence is a pretty weak "argument".

"Giving people life sentences is worse than killing them. Economically, morally, ethically etc unless ofcourse there's a strong reason for it."

Life without parole costs the justice system WAAAY less than death penalty cases do. I agree that having to live with your horrible crime for life without the possibility of parole is horrendous, but I have little sympathy for those that are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't think that all liberals "love" criminals, because we really don't.

"Innocent people will be put to the death penalty.. and even though I don't want this.. it is for the greater good."

Who's "greater good"???

I would much prefer that the Manson's & BTK's of the world be held under study for life without parole so that we can better understand why they turned out the way that they did, so that others need not go down that same path in the future.

"How does a law that establishes a zero recidivism rate not deter crime?"

You're making a HUGE assumption that the person being put to death is actually guilty. We know for a FACT that innocent people have been put to death already!

"Capital punishment offers little deterrence, but its wrong to say that it has an effect on future crime equal to zero."

You've successfully completely contradicted yourself over the course of just one sentence! Furthermore:

"Capital Punishment Doesn’t Deter Crime – It’s a fact"

http://www.moraldilemma.observationdeck.org/?p=88

"I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point."

Former Attorney General Janet Reno

-No support whatsoever is found for the argument that the certainty or speed of the death penalty provides an effective deterrent to murder. Not a single reputable study has yet to demonstrate the death penalty to be a more effective deterrent to murder than alternative legal sanctions.

"[Capital punishment] violates the Eighth Amendment because it is morally unacceptable to the people of the United States at this time in their history. In judging whether or not a given penalty is morally acceptable, most courts have said that the punishment is valid unless 'it shocks the conscience and sense of justice of the people.' Assuming knowledge of all the facts presently available regarding capital punishment, the average citizen would, in my opinion, find it shocking to his conscience and sense of justice. For this reason alone, capital punishment cannot stand."

Thurgood Marshall, former US Supreme Court Associate Justice

-Capital punishment is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice. When the govt. metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life & human dignity. In a civilized society, we reject the principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist's house. Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of uncivilized society.

-There has been a recent drop in the broad use of the death penalty, as indicated by a 60% drop in death sentences, a 45% decline in executions, a smaller death row, and a decreasing level of public support. In public opinion polls, there is a clear upward trend in support for life-without-parole sentences as a substitute for the death penalty. States without the death penalty have fared BETTER in reducing their murder rates than states with the death penalty. The death penalty concentrates millions of dollars on a few people with almost no control over the outcome. There are MUCH better ways to spend the public's tax dollars than on court cases trying to execute people.

In judicial administration, there are basically three types of punishments awarded to people who have committed crimes: the first is what are known as "reformative " punishments, in which the purpose of the punishment is to enable the criminal to reform himself. Punishments here would be in the form of community service,jail sentence etc..; the second is what are known as retributive , in which the punishment is in the form of public lashing, cutting off hands or legs etc., which is expected to work as a revenge and should satisfy the person against whom the crime is perpetrated; the third is what is known as "deterrent" punishment, whereby the object of the punishment is to deter any other person from committing similar crimes. Death penalty is usually a deterrent punishment, and it can be argued that many would-be criminals would be deterred from committing the crime if they know the penalty that would meet them is their death.

Whether death penalty should be available as an option in a judicial system or not, depends upon the sensitivity of the society to the criminal acts. If some people in that society feel it is "worth it " to commit a crime, because they can serve some term in prison and come back into the society, then it may be necessary to put the fear of life ( death sentence ) into such people by showing that others who have done such crimes have been put to death.

The question of whether death sentence should be allowed to continue or not, is therefore dependent upon the society and in general a society that has evolved as a "civilized" society would not need such punishments.

America, has no doubt evolved as a civilized society, but it has terrible enemies who would work from within its society and this may be a reason for wanting to continue death penalty. But then, by awarding death penalty to such people, you make martyrs of them. Therefore life sentence would also serve as a better deterrent in such cases. So death penalty should be banned.

not all are serial killers, and it costs more money to kill these people then keep them in prison for 50 years

people should not be punished for making bad mistakes. if we did then wher would society be today?

just because someone is believed to have done something wrong doesnt mean that they are bad people who deserve to die...what if that happened to you? A person who happens to look like you rapes a woman and you are accused, u should die?

okayyy for those of you that dont know, to execute one person costs more than keeping them in jail for 50 years so rethink that...

so you weigh whatever monetary savings (if any) over the life of someone found innocent after conviction (even if rare)?

yes it is true,they are also human being n they hav right to live

You already do. In Washington State there are 2 serial killers serving life in prison cause they could tell you where more bodies were.

I think America should ban the death penalty because no man/woman has the right to kill anyone even if the have done something wrong, because i believe that only God should have the power to take people's lives.

No i havent seen the movie 12 Angry Men .

Have you seen the movie OTIS ?

http://www.film.com/movies/otis/21376836

I guess you could say im a bit like the mum in OTIS.

In all honesty im glad i am not someone who has to decide murder as punishment for someone who has committed crimes.

I am all too passionate about some cases.

And i have reasons .

I really do agree that they make mistakes , but are you going to tell me that the case of ;

ted bundy

the wests

and the many rest are not "absolute" cases ?

I cant agree.

I dont think the death penalty should be apllied in just any case.

No, I understand what you're saying, but I'm disagreeing that there is such thing as an absolute case. Have you seen the movie 12 Angry Men? That's an example of what I'm talking about. Its about a group of men on a jury that think that it's an open and shut case beyond all reasonable doubt, but they realize it's not. There's no such thing as an absolute case.

how many does there need to be to outweight the difference between execution and life in prison?

i dont believe Australia should have the death penalty

they should NEVER be released

I think many people here would agree with you - including me - they should just be locked up - if they are never safe to be released into society, they should never be let out.

(though you have posts here that are tagged 'hang em, put em in the ground, and let 'em live - so i am getting mixed messages...)

just pointing out that you argue to eliminate the death penalty, but your argument is tagged as 'Hang 'em high'

please do dispute me - my username is justignoreme - it is meant tongue in cheek

i think most people here are arguing that our justice system does not require absolute certainty in order to sentence someone to the death penalty, and we can almost never have absolute certainty. even people who have confessed have been later found innocent (taking the fall for someone else, coerced confessions, etc.)

“TRIED TO RECENTLY APPLY FOR BAIL” – I don’t think this is accurate since bail is not used once a person has been convicted. You may possibly mean that they sought to appeal, or were up for parole though I have not found any evidence to that effect.

Worst case scenario – which does not seem to have happened here – would be that a dangerous person is let go, this would not be a valid argument for the death penalty, rather an argument for reform of the parole process, etc.

The only thing we know for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN is that we are all sinners – yet we do not preemptively lock everyone up.

The death penalty doesn't need to become more equalized. The death penalty is useless deterrent from crime. Granted, someone, who bestows great harm onto a family for egregious acts, doesn't give the government the right to kill that person. The eye for an eye biblical crap is barbaric and outdated. All death penalty should be abolished. If anything, the death penalty is a easy way out for most of the criminals instead of living and suffering in a small cell with crappy food. Maybe instead of killing inmates, they should get rid of more privileges like going outside and visitation. The death penalty is saying that we give up on this person, and we enjoy watching people die.

The death penalty would be great and very practical, but the duration of time it takes for a prisoner to eventually be executed is over a span of decades and there are hardly any peopleto be executed. That's how it is in America anyways. If the death penalty were to be in effect immediately when sentence, then it would be practical. But now? The whole idea sound far too vestigal and drawn-out. Make the guilty feel penitence for there misdeeds for the span of the lives, rather than going out in peace and closure after fifteen years of dwelling on it.

you are the one who said It not an overstatement it's a FACT. look it up. so where is your evidence then? now your saying there is no sure way to know

"This is a notoriously sketchy study to begin with"

...in your own, completely biased opinion that is.

"I don't care where you got your information, there is no sure way to know."

Thanks for letting us know that the real facts of the issue at hand will ultimately mean nothing to you...so we're done here!

"I think that it is possible to exonerate people after they have been tried and been convicted as guilty. I think that even though it never happens, it can"

...and it already has happened...many, many times.

Touche. Very true, mister. Kudos to you.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

"with over 10,000 executions, there hasn't been a single false conviction."

LOL...TX has only legally executed 1,196 people my GOP friend. Also, Texas has executed persons who were, in fact, innocent. One notable case involves Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004 for murdering his three daughters in 1991 by arson, but where a 2009 article in The New Yorker, and subsequent findings, have cast doubt on the evidence used in his conviction. In 2009, a report conducted by Dr. Craig Beyler, hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the case, found that "a finding of arson could not be sustained". Beyler said that key testimony from a fire marshal at Willingham's trial was "hardly consistent with a scientific mind-set and is more characteristic of mystics or psychics.”

BTW, once again, you've offered exactly ZERO evidence that anything that you claim is actually true.

"But what is not being accounted for is the long-term strain placed on prison facilities"

...which is almost completely being caused by the USA housing so many non-violent drug offenders, period.

You've offered exactly ZERO proof of any of your claims here.

You are WAY overstating your case here. There have been many people convicted of crimes that they didn't actually commit (including capital crimes).

Appeals -

"Unlimited appeals only waste time and money. It's basically swing and a miss. Keep swinging and you'll hit something which may alter the minds of the judge and jury - doesn't necesserily mean they're innocent."

Actually, if you know how the court system works, when the judge and jury say you are innocent, it means that the government recognizes your innocence and would therefore have no right to kill you. What you are actually criticizing is the success of a free appeals system and saying that it would have been better to kill an innocent man because that would have been cheaper and made a better point.

Emotional appeasement

Had you the capacity to understand the argument I was making, you may have answered it better than: "LOL?? What kind of bullshit are you talking about?" I'll make a chart like you did because apparently that's an easy way for you to understand things.

Capital punishment vs life in prison

-may permanently kill the innocent vs possibility of wrongful incarceration with ability for rectification

-convict has no chance for redemption vs convict has opportunity to change

-convict is suffers for about 10 years vs convict suffers for 20-30 years

-cost 10 times as much per inmate vs lower cost of one regular inmate

-provides biblical "eye for an eye" justice vs punishment in a humane and civilized manner

-ineffective deterrent (Look at the numbers, and you will see that states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than those who do. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2008) ) vs moderate deterrence

Fear of death-

"There would be a fear of death.. if there was death. But because nobody is actually executed.. people aren't afraid. IF they WERE executed then they WOULD be afraid."

In order to have a justice system be as fair as possible while incorporating a death penalty system, a lengthy appeals system is needed. You cannot allow your government to kill its own citizens just to prove a point to other possible criminals. Your government needs to spend the time and money going through every bit of evidence to make sure that the decision it makes is justified. Other countries have death penalty systems that are more effective because their citizens don't have the luxury of appeals, countries like China and Iran. Your government shouldn't proceed to end a person's life without adequate investigation because it simply didn't fit into the budget, or thought your life was expendable anyway.

The sort of extreme punishment you are advocating may be effective in some places where they flog you for spitting gum on a sidewalk, but its certainly not fair, and certainly not constitutional. For example, I'm certain speeding would stop if people had their fingers cut off instead of being ticketed for violations, but that's definitely not a society I'd like to live in.

"that is not a fact."

Yes, it is, and I have clearly shown that...with links to prove it even.

"why does it matter about the past if it can only get more accurate in the future?"

Riiiight, the past doesn't matter...sure, sure...

"If we are talking about abolishing the death penalty, then what is the point in arguing against technology that can only become more advanced?"

Who's arguing against technology here?? YOU ARE! You refuse to acknowledge that DNA evidence has freed people from death row, which it clearly has!

"You don't have to be a 'Supreme Court expert' to know that the justices' are the ones who are going to have to admit to wrongful execution."

Nonsense, the issue of people being put to death for crimes that they likely NEVER committed is only one issue with the death penalty. The death penalty is cruel & unusual punishment, and it has been (and will continue to be) applied unfairly to different racial & ethnic groups. It's just a matter of time before the USA joins the rest of the civilized world & bans the death penalty for good.

"i don't understand how that shows zero proof. If the founding fathers were the ones in control of the country when it was first started, then everything that they wanted to occur in terms of legislation changes would have occurred."

Really?? Well, they also allowed slavery to exist, and they denied Native Americans, women, and people that didn't own property the right to vote. So, I guess we should go back to doing all that now, eh?? Please, you have yet to cite a single quote from ANY of the Founders about the death penalty. In fact, I'll bet that you don't even know or care how they felt on the issue, period.

"there have been people who have been set free even though they were supposed to be in jail for life"

...or been executed, period.

"how do I have a closed mind if I don't support something that never occurred?"

Ugh...we're done here buddy...move along...I'm not responding to you on this issue anymore...there's no point to it...

"These studies always take into account the costs of appeals and reappeals and with death row cases there are always tons of them which increases the costs dramatically."

Duh! That's the point! Taking the death penalty completely off the table SAVES the govt. money in the long-run.

"Couldn't find anything about that."

You need to unhide all the comments on this side of the argument. I hate how the site automatically hides them. Does anyone know how to change that feature??

"I doubt it's a regular occurance but it probably does happen more often than it should."

More than it should?? The studies are very clear that people are routinely convicted of crimes that they never committed, period.

"I've made a post disputing sirius's post on this debate about how and why death penalty cases are so much more expensive. The reason why killing them is better is not just the economic benefits but also the deterrent it causes."

Look, studies have consistently shown that death penalty cases cost the govt. FAR MORE than life without parole cases.

"Firstly there has been no proof that an Innocent man has ever been placed on death row."

OF COURSE THERE IS...see far below...my goodness!

"Secondly there will be a place and time that somebody innocent will be executed, but you cannot stop the whole system due to one wrong execution. If it is a regular occurance then ofcourse"

...which is the whole point! People are regularly put on death row that have been proven innocent eventually.

"Do you honestly think a mass murderer is a viable source of information?"

Do you honestly believe in science?? I do, and I know that through studying things that we learn more about how & why they occur, period.

"When asked why he killed them, he said that the chickens on his farm told him to grab a wrench and beat them all to death. So now that we know he's insane, we should allow him to walk the streets?"

LOL...who says that we need to release people that are a danger to themselves & others?? That's a strawman argument.

As for your buddy, he obviously had a specific mental disorder, but WHY did he develop it?? Wasn't chemical, biological, his treatment as a child, etc., etc.?? We need to KNOW these things in order to prevent others from falling into the same trap of mental illness!

"Even if we kept them alive in a cell, there's no guarantee they would cooperate"

...except that many already have.

"We can get more information from a third party anyway."

There's no better source for the truth than from a first-hand account.

Dude i thnk you should ban it. That could be considered Cruel and Unusual Punishment, it could mess with the persons mind.

YES IT WAS A BIT WHAT , WHAT HORRIBLE WHAT I SAID ,THIS WAS AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO ABOUT WHAT HE DID? and WHAT ABOUT WHAT HE DID?

ps Just Ignore Me

"also i dont think they should be held in prison for years after the trial because they are going to be killed so we might as well kill them soon so we dont have to pay for them with our taxes.. (our taxes pay for prisons)"

It's already been proven that non-death penalty cases end up costing much less than death penalty cases, and this includes the cost of incarceration.

"People have, and will, be executed even though they are innocent of the crime."- there is no evidence of anyone ever being wrongfully executed in the United States.

"Unless we can come up with a system that almost always guarantees a fair trial with a correct verdict, I don't think it is right to put innocent people at risk."- ill answer this with another quote: "if government functioned only when the possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all." If its not right to put innocent people at risk, then why are people allowed to drive?

"and our population's getting kinda high"

...because of immigration into the USA, period.

yes that is true ,

but when there is an ABSOLUTE CASE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE CASE.

When every bit of evidence supports that the person is gulty and there OWN confession is also added to the pile of damming evidence say like caught "RED HANDED".

THIS IS WHAT IM MEANING WHEN I SAY WITHOUT ABSOLUTE DOUBT!

I understand what you are saying but i dont think you understand what i am saying.

sorry.