Your position on the death penalty

[Light]

Surprisingly, a thread of this nature hasn't been made in this forum yet to my knowledge. Mods, please delete/lock this if I am wrong.

Well, the title explains it all. Do you support or oppose the death penalty? Why? I oppose the death penalty because it is an unnecessary punishment that is carried out for emotional reasons rather than rational reasons. It's morally unjustifiable in my view. Moreover, the application of such a punishment is subject to racial bias and human error. The irrevocability of this punishment means that the state essentially murders those who were wrongly convicted.

Hopefully, this thread will foster meaningful discussion on this sensitive issue.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

there use to be a big old thread about it. but a new one! I believe the Death Penalty is for only the worst of the WORST mostly for those who commit sex offenses homicides that involve 5 or more people. otherwise everyone else serves their prison sentence while doing labor for the remainder of their sentence fixing roads and bridges and stuff while getting maybe $1.50 a day for compensation. not only do they fix state and national infrastructure saving the government money on contracts it helps rehabilitates the inmates.

[Light]

At 8/22/13 10:42 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: there use to be a big old thread about it. but a new one! I believe the Death Penalty is for only the worst of the WORST mostly for those who commit sex offenses homicides that involve 5 or more people.

Alright.

But why 5 or more people?

otherwise everyone else serves their prison sentence while doing labor for the remainder of their sentence fixing roads and bridges and stuff while getting maybe $1.50 a day for compensation. not only do they fix state and national infrastructure saving the government money on contracts it helps rehabilitates the inmates.

I'm no lawyer, but I've always questioned the constitutionality of forcing prisoners to work and paying them below minimum wage. I'm not sure if the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, but it seems like they would declare it unconstitutional unless they're paid minimum wage. Then again, they could rule that the abysmal wage is part of the punishment and thus constitutional somehow.

[Cynical-Charlotte]

I believe execution should be reserved for the most heinous acts. And while we're on the subject, any criminal convicted of a violent crime should be subjected to forced, unpaid labor. Law is written to punish offenders, not rehabilitate them.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/22/13 10:46 PM, Light wrote: Alright.

But why 5 or more people?

as morbid as that sounds it seems like a reasonable number for some reason

I'm no lawyer, but I've always questioned the constitutionality of forcing prisoners to work and paying them below minimum wage. I'm not sure if the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, but it seems like they would declare it unconstitutional unless they're paid minimum wage. Then again, they could rule that the abysmal wage is part of the punishment and thus constitutional somehow.

have you ever seen Lockup on MSNBC or whatever channel its on? the work programs in there make about 30 to 50 cents a day but go a dollar to 1.50 wouldn't be so bad. this is far better and if they do good maybe when their parole comes up it can be used as merit in favor of parole.

[Light]

At 8/22/13 11:10 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/22/13 10:46 PM, Light wrote: Alright.

But why 5 or more people?

as morbid as that sounds it seems like a reasonable number for some reason

So exactly why do you support the death penalty?

have you ever seen Lockup on MSNBC or whatever channel its on? the work programs in there make about 30 to 50 cents a day but go a dollar to 1.50 wouldn't be so bad. this is far better and if they do good maybe when their parole comes up it can be used as merit in favor of parole.

I imagine that those sentenced to death can't be eligible for parole. lol

At 8/22/13 11:01 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I believe execution should be reserved for the most heinous acts. And while we're on the subject, any criminal convicted of a violent crime should be subjected to forced, unpaid labor. Law is written to punish offenders, not rehabilitate them.

So exactly why do you support the death penalty?

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/22/13 11:15 PM, Light wrote: So exactly why do you support the death penalty?

I only support it for the douche bags who truly deserve it like Timothy Mcveigh and James Holmes. otherwise I believe its unnecessary. you just killed ONE person? okay 25 to Life until we think your good, don't hand out the DP like candy.

I imagine that those sentenced to death can't be eligible for parole. lol

sorry I misunderstood I thought you were only talking about the guys who aren't sentenced to death and carrying their sentence, my bad.

[Cynical-Charlotte]

At 8/22/13 11:15 PM, Light wrote: So exactly why do you support the death penalty?

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

[Light]

At 8/22/13 11:43 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:

At 8/22/13 11:15 PM, Light wrote: So exactly why do you support the death penalty?

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

So you believe in "eye for an eye"?

[RacistBassist]

At 8/22/13 11:43 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

Never shall innocent blood be shed, yet the blood of the wicked shall flow like a river. The Three shall spread their blackened wings and be the vengeful striking hammer of God.

[Cynical-Charlotte]

At 8/22/13 11:48 PM, Light wrote:

At 8/22/13 11:43 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:

At 8/22/13 11:15 PM, Light wrote: So exactly why do you support the death penalty?

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

So you believe in "eye for an eye"?

Yes, but only in the judicial context. If your next question is along the lines of torture, I would respond by saying there are much more profitable consequences such as forced labor. The most revolting, strenuous tasks should be given on the basis of the severity of a crime. If one is unable to perform physically, there are other options which demand less manual work. Solitary confinement should be reserved for the remainder. Only inmates convicted of non-violent crimes should be allowed minimum wage.

[Camarohusky]

Too expensive and functionally useless.

It costs a hell of a lot more to execute someone than it does to have them in prison for the rest of their life (what with the numerous rounds of guaranteed appeals they get.) So if it costs more it must have a good use, right?

Wrong.

People claim the death penalty is a deterrent. It is not. When a person chooses to commit an act so heinous as to deserve the death penalty they have already made the decision that their life is forfiet, one way or another.

The difference between death and LWOP (life w/o parole) is supposed to be deterrent, but that just doesn't work too well. The other benefit, incapacitation, is just as well served by an LWOP sentence.

I figure the only tangible benefit to the death penalty is that it gives the prosecutor something to bargain down to without letting the dangerous person go free ever.

[Light]

At 8/23/13 12:04 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:

Yes, but only in the judicial context.

Eye for an eye is not a good reason to support the death penalty since it would mean that you'd have to support the principle for other crimes if you want to be consistent. Rape the rapist, molest the child molester, steal from the thief.

Surely you can think of another reason to execute some criminals, right?

Solitary confinement should be reserved for the remainder.

Why use solitary confinement? It can only be used on those who violate prison rules or commit dangerous crimes in prison. Even then, it is usually only used for several days to a week or two at most. Anything longer than that is considered psychological torture and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

[RacistBassist]

At 8/23/13 12:11 AM, Light wrote: Eye for an eye is not a good reason to support the death penalty since it would mean that you'd have to support the principle for other crimes if you want to be consistent. Rape the rapist, molest the child molester, steal from the thief.

Surely you can think of another reason to execute some criminals, right?

While I'm not a strict advocate for the eye for an eye route of thinking, you can support the concept without taking the literal extreme of the punishment of the offense being the actual offense.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/23/13 12:11 AM, Light wrote:

Why use solitary confinement? It can only be used on those who violate prison rules or commit dangerous crimes in prison. Even then, it is usually only used for several days to a week or two at most. Anything longer than that is considered psychological torture and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Not true. There are dudes who have been in the SHU (solitary housing unit) for YEARS. Either gang leaders who call shots or overtly dangerous inmates. Charles Manson is in solitary for his own good and hes a decrepit old man. And they aren't in solitary always they get 1 hour every day out of there cells sepealrately. There for its not psychological torture .

[Light]

At 8/23/13 12:14 AM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 8/23/13 12:11 AM, Light wrote: Eye for an eye is not a good reason to support the death penalty since it would mean that you'd have to support the principle for other crimes if you want to be consistent. Rape the rapist, molest the child molester, steal from the thief.

Surely you can think of another reason to execute some criminals, right?

While I'm not a strict advocate for the eye for an eye route of thinking, you can support the concept without taking the literal extreme of the punishment of the offense being the actual offense.

I see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't want to call it eye for an eye. Rather, it's merely punishment for a crime. Eye for an eye is a kind of punishment for a crime. Essentially, doing what the criminal did to that criminal, except it is sanctioned by law and performed by the state or by an individual.

But incarcerating people for committing certain crimes doesn't constitute eye for an eye.

At 8/23/13 12:22 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
Not true. There are dudes who have been in the SHU (solitary housing unit) for YEARS. Either gang leaders who call shots or overtly dangerous inmates. Charles Manson is in solitary for his own good and hes a decrepit old man. And they aren't in solitary always they get 1 hour every day out of there cells sepealrately. There for its not psychological torture .

I bet $10 that they exhibit signs of psychological torture. You didn't even show that they haven't been psychologically harmed, so you aren't justified to claim that, based on these examples, solitary confinement is not a form of torture.

Please cite empirical evidence that shows that extended solitary confinement does not constitute psychological torture. If you want me to cite evidence that it is, I will be more than happy to oblige.

[TNT]

Since I'm majoring in Criminal Justice, I feel I should share my opinion on the topic.

In most cases: no, I do not support the death penalty. There's an issue with executing people who have been wrongfully convicted, and as the DNA and trace evidence improves, it turns out some of them didn't commit the crime. Unfortunately, some "convicted criminals" have already been executed despite the fact, which adds controversy to our current Criminal Justice System. Many people would also argue that the death penalty can be implied as a direct violation of the Eighth Amendment (which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment).

A professor that lectured one of my Criminal Justice classes provided a theory of certain crimes becoming punishable by the death penalty. I can't remember if he did the research, if he got data from another source, or if its just something he pondered about, but it should be worth thinking about. It certainly did for me. What if rape, sexual assault to a minor, and anything similar became a guaranteed death sentence? Many people at first would think, especially the feminist group, that it would be the best thing in the world! No one would want to rape anyone now that they might risk getting killed in the electric chair!

But hold on, you can still get the death penalty for murder. And sadly, no matter how strict the punishments are, there will still be people committing said crimes one way or another. Theoretically speaking, if the rapist were to rape a woman knowing these new penalties, then he have no reason NOT to kill her too. Logically if the rapist doesn't want to get caught, then one must hide the evidence, and witnesses (which the woman he raped would definitely be the biggest witness). At this point the rapist has nothing to lose, so to increase his chances to not get caught, he must also kill her, and hide her body and destroy any evidence he may have left behind.

However, this is not saying that all rapists won't kill their victims if the punishment for rape wasn't the death penalty. The sad reality is that many women who got raped are also killed. But for those who haven't been killed, it is possible to assume that the rapists knows that if they were to take it one step further by killing her, they're doomed for the death sentence if they get caught. So instead, they blackmail the victim to not report the crime, and flee knowing that if they get caught, at least they won't get executed if convicted.

So basically, if the government were to add death penalties to other horrible crimes like rape, then the odds of the victims getting killed as well will theoretically increase. In other words, it could make the situation worse.

[Cynical-Charlotte]

At 8/23/13 12:11 AM, Light wrote: Rape the rapist, molest the child molester, steal from the thief.

Castrate the rapist, castrate the molester, fine the thief double if the property cannot be returned.

psychological torture and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

I wonder how much psychological torture a rape victim or parent of a murdered child suffers. Those who deprive the rights of others should themselves be deprived of the same rights.

[Light]

At 8/23/13 01:24 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:

At 8/23/13 12:11 AM, Light wrote: Rape the rapist, molest the child molester, steal from the thief.

Castrate the rapist, castrate the molester, fine the thief double if the property cannot be returned.

That's cruel and unusual in the first two case. Hence, it cannot be performed. It is also a severe violation of human rights. The third one doesn't even make sense. It would be preferable to temporarily incarcerate them for the safety of society. Having the thief pay some fine or relinquish some property isn't sufficient punishment and doesn't exactly protect society. If possible in the future, we should incorporate rehabilitative techniques in our justice system to reduce recidivism rates, but I digress.

psychological torture and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

I wonder how much psychological torture a rape victim or parent of a murdered child suffers. Those who deprive the rights of others should themselves be deprived of the same rights.

Yeah, the concept of "rights" doesn't work like that.

Just because someone's rights have been violated, it does not mean that the state should be permitted to violate the rights of the person who is accused unless it is necessary to protect more important rights.

Here's an example:

A man named John violently assaults a homeless person and is subsequently arrested. John violated that homeless person's right not to be harmed. For the safety of society, John will be incarcerated for a period of time. Society's collective right to be safe overrides John's right to be free and walking in the streets. A right should only be violated if it is necessary to protect an even greater right.

But with the death penalty, depriving the person of the right to life isn't necessary at all. It's motivated by vengeance, as evidenced by the last part of your post in which you advocate the capricious violation of someone's right to satisfy someone else's emotional desires. Life in prison w/o the possibility of parole satisfies society's need to protect its right to safety. Killing the accused isn't necessary to accomplish this.

[Light]

At 8/23/13 01:42 AM, Light wrote: Life in prison w/o the possibility of parole satisfies society's need to protect its right to safety. Killing the accused isn't necessary to accomplish this.

In addition, the family of the person to be executed is excessively psychologically harmed by the execution of a loved one. If you want to take into consideration the pain inflicted to one family, consider the excessive pain that'd be inflicted to the other.

[Angry-Hatter]

I find the death penalty to be a pointless and cruel exercise. The whole point of a criminal system, in my view, is to prevent violent people from harming other members of society, that is, to segregate them from the rest of us for as long as they pose a threat to others. Efforts to rehabilitate criminals needs to be a key component of incarceration as it has been shown to be much more effective at reducing the rate of recidivism compared to incarceration that focuses on meeting out harsh punishment.

Of course, there are some individuals who commit crimes of such a heinous nature and where the prospect of rehabilitation are so slim that it becomes necessary to remove them from the rest of society indefinitely. The two options for this are imprisonment for life, and the death penalty. Both methods succeeds in removing the individual, so what are the merits of each of them? It is my belief that the supposed virtues of the death penalty are exaggerated and nonfactual in nature and serve more as an attempt to rationalize some of the most irrational human emotions; bloodlust and revenge.

Even if we accepted that the eye-for-an-eye mentality was an acceptable reason for killing someone, the death penalty as it stands in the US still falls short. No matter how many people a murderer kills or how brutally he goes about it, he still has to be executed in a humane way (if lethal injection can be considered humane). I don't know exactly how I would feel if someone brutally murdered someone I love, but I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't feel satisfied with the guy quietly slipping away; I would want him to suffer, I would want him tortured, I would want his nuts cut off and have them fed to him as he slowly bleeds to death, and I would want to do it myself. If the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment means anything to people, they should be thankful that the family of the victim has no say in deciding the punishment of the convicted. Emotions should have no place in our legal system- it should be based on cold, impartial reasoning and logic.

While I can somewhat understand why people have a psychological need for revenge, I simply can't find any logical reason for executing someone who isn't posing any immediate danger to anyone, which is why I am opposed to the death penalty even in the cases when the guilt of the person is indisputable.

[Cynical-Charlotte]

At 8/23/13 01:42 AM, Light wrote: That's cruel and unusual in the first two case.

Rape and molestation are cruel and unusual.

Yeah, the concept of "rights" doesn't work like that.

I know how the judicial system works - I am saying how it should work, in my opinion.

It's motivated by vengeance, as evidenced by the last part of your post in which you advocate the capricious violation of someone's right to satisfy someone else's emotional desires.

It actually has nothing to do with satisfying emotions. A rape victim could be nonchalant about what happened; the sentencing remains the same. Justice is not based on emotion, it is based on fairness. If you choose to harm others, you relinquish your own protection from harm and it becomes the government's responsibility to execute sufficient consequences.

Allowing a taker of lives to keep his own is not justice.

[Cynical-Charlotte]

At 8/23/13 01:45 AM, Light wrote: In addition, the family of the person to be executed is excessively psychologically harmed by the execution of a loved one.

If you don't want your family to be upset, don't kill people.

(I am not being curt with you, I simply find the solution to crime very straight-forward.)

[Angry-Hatter]

At 8/23/13 12:46 AM, TNT wrote: So basically, if the government were to add death penalties to other horrible crimes like rape, then the odds of the victims getting killed as well will theoretically increase. In other words, it could make the situation worse.

And let's not forget the fact that the majority of rapes and cases of child sexual abuse are committed by someone who is familiar with the victim. Is a raped girl really going to turn in her cousin, or uncle, or father, knowing that he will face the death penalty if she does so? Even if the guy who raped her is a creep, she still might not want to see him die. Rapes already go unreported all the time as it is. Adding the death penalty into the mix isn't going to improve on that trend.

[Light]

At 8/23/13 02:01 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:

At 8/23/13 01:42 AM, Light wrote: That's cruel and unusual in the first two case.

Rape and molestation are cruel and unusual.

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Your move.

Yeah, the concept of "rights" doesn't work like that.

I know how the judicial system works - I am saying how it should work, in my opinion.

I'm talking more about moral philosophy and how our justice system is designed reflect it--however imperfectly.

It's imposs

It's motivated by vengeance, as evidenced by the last part of your post in which you advocate the capricious violation of someone's right to satisfy someone else's emotional desires.

It actually has nothing to do with satisfying emotions. A rape victim could be nonchalant about what happened;

I don't think any rape victim in the history of rape has ever been nonchalant about rape.

the sentencing remains the same. Justice is not based on emotion, it is based on fairness.

It isn't fair to deprive someone's rights if that deprivation isn't for the purpose of defending other rights. The desire to apply the death penalty is inherently emotional and doesn't have any established necessity.

It also doesn't make sense for the government to participate in a cruel act to punish cruel acts. What it boils down to in essence is the killing of killers to show potential killers that killing is wrong.

That is absurd.

If you choose to harm others, you relinquish your own protection from harm and it becomes the government's responsibility to execute sufficient consequences.

The government cannot simply take away human rights unless the failure to do so infringes on the rights of society. Life w/o possibility of parole can serve this purpose. Execution doesn't uphold any specific right.

It's commonly accepted that people have a right not to be harmed. Although certain criminals violate these rights, it doesn't really make sense for these criminals to have their right to life violated if it doesn't make us safer. Rights are pointless unless they will be completely protected and acknowledged, except in cases where more important rights must be upheld by violating lower rights.

Take the concept of the right to freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want about whatever you want unless doing so in certain cases constitutes a violation of greater rights. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater because you violate people's right to be safe; people get trampled over and killed when this kind of thing happens. You can't slander someone's name or commit the act of libel because you harm those whom you commit slander/libel against.

What right does the government have to take life from a criminal? Can you be specific? A right to fairness doesn't really count. I don't know how it could possibly override someone's right to life. This application of a right of fairness would probably also mean that eye for an eye is morally acceptable, which it most certainly is not.

Allowing a taker of lives to keep his own is not justice.

Please tell me how permanent relinquishment of one's freedom and permanent protection afforded to society from these criminals as a result doesn't constitute justice. Support for the death penalty is inherently motivated by a sense of vengeance. That's eye for an eye is all about.

Also, just curious: do you support the death penalty in spite of its financial costs, racial bias, and possibility of killing the innocent? If so, why?

At 8/23/13 02:06 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:

If you don't want your family to be upset, don't kill people.

The government would be committing a cruel act and causing the family of the accused undue anguish which is very harmful.

That isn't right.

(I am not being curt with you, I simply find the solution to crime very straight-forward.)

One thing I've learned in the extremely short time I've spent on Earth is that complex problems never have simple solutions. Crime is no exception and I fail to understand why you think it is.

[Light]

At 8/23/13 02:57 AM, Light wrote:
I'm talking more about moral philosophy and how our justice system is designed reflect it--however imperfectly.

*Designed to reflect it.

Goddamit Newgrounds let me edit my posts

Also, didn't know where I was going with that "Imposs" thing. Ignore it.

[Korriken]

I think the death penalty is a total waste of resources. It costs millions to house and keep watch on the person to make sure he doesn't kill himself before the government gets a chance to, as well as feed, clothe, and entertain the animal.

Instead, those who are guilty of a capital offense should be branded as a beast, stripped of his human rights and sent off to be used for medical experiments.

This way, the filth can continue to contribute to society (or contribute for the first time), instead of languishing in a cell for years on end and cost taxpayers millions.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/23/13 12:33 AM, Light wrote:

At 8/23/13 12:22 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
Not true. There are dudes who have been in the SHU (solitary housing unit) for YEARS. Either gang leaders who call shots or overtly dangerous inmates. Charles Manson is in solitary for his own good and hes a decrepit old man. And they aren't in solitary always they get 1 hour every day out of there cells sepealrately. There for its not psychological torture .

I bet $10 that they exhibit signs of psychological torture. You didn't even show that they haven't been psychologically harmed, so you aren't justified to claim that, based on these examples, solitary confinement is not a form of torture.

Please cite empirical evidence that shows that extended solitary confinement does not constitute psychological torture. If you want me to cite evidence that it is, I will be more than happy to oblige.

sorry I pushed Post! (I'm posting on my phone I didn't get to finish my sentence, and said fuck it i'll wait because I need sleep) Its not torture in my OPINION. the assholes are in SHU for a reason besides committing a crime (attacking guards, other inmates gang related or just fucking too dangerous) you don't go in there without a reason and you have plenty of ways to keep yourself busy.

[dem0lecule]

I support death penalty, only to a certain level. Criminals like serial killers, mass murderers, war criminals, terrorists and repeated murderers should be executed. It costs more to keep them in prison (wait for it) for long time.

[Cynical-Charlotte]

At 8/23/13 02:57 AM, Light wrote: It isn't fair to deprive someone's rights if that deprivation isn't for the purpose of defending other rights.

So you base justice on a prediction of the future? What if a man shoots up a school, then attempts to commit suicide but becomes paralyzed from the waist down. Surely, he won't be able to repeat his offense and become a 'danger to society' - so, your philosophy implies he should not go to prison. In fact, if the defense can prove a murder was premeditated based on a grudge, the murderer should go to prison unless the prosecution can prove he still has grudges with other people - especially if he has no track record of killing random people.

Like it or not, people go to prison as punishment. The worse the crime, the worse the punishment.

What it boils down to in essence is the killing of killers to show potential killers that killing is wrong.

No, it's killing killers to show potential killers that murder is wrong. Execution is not murder. The government would not be selecting people for execution. Criminals select themselves for execution.

It's commonly accepted that people have a right not to be harmed.

Should we stop arresting people altogether? Imprisonment deprives one's right to their person. it's basically kidnapping, and if the police damages your property in the process, they should be charged with vandalism.

Please tell me how permanent relinquishment of one's freedom and permanent protection afforded to society from these criminals as a result doesn't constitute justice.

Sure, life in prison is a form of justice - execution is better justice.

Also, just curious: do you support the death penalty in spite of its financial costs, racial bias, and possibility of killing the innocent? If so, why?

I support the idea of execution, but I am not actively seeking ways to change the country's judicial system.