jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (130 posts)

Capital Punishment

  1. garrettdixon profile image60
    garrettdixonposted 5 years ago

    Can anyone tell me a reason not to believe in capital punishment?

    1. Max Dalton profile image80
      Max Daltonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Someone could be wrongfully convicted.

      1. garrettdixon profile image60
        garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "...No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976... The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal..."
        Steven D. Stewart, JD

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          His point was that, if you find out your mistake, you can normally release the person with a pardon. So far we have yet to discover a resurrection device.

          I, personally, am against the death penalty, but for a much different reason:

          Whereas, The government is made up of the people;

          whereas, an individual is not allowed to kill another;

          whereas, an individual is not allowed to delegate a right or power that they never once had to begin with;

          then the government does not have the authority to kill, either.

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And you're logic is flawed because you bring it to an individual level. wink

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              that's what they tell me.

              Too bad I don't listen.

              If an individual doesn't have the right to kill someone, then they can't grant that power to anyone else.

              1. Cagsil profile image59
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It's not the individual who is granting the power to someone else. So take your head out of the sand and listen up.

                It's a group of citizens who jointly make the decision, just like it was a joint decision by government to make the death penalty/capital punishment a sentence to begin with.

                1. stclairjack profile image80
                  stclairjackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  the act of injecting organ melting poisons into some ones body in oder to kill them because you/society wish to punish them for,.. killing some one,... seems VERY individual,..... just sayin.

                  you have given the state the machanics with wich to exicute its citizens,... and you may placate yourself with the notion that cool and delibrative heads have come to this descision after much grave thought,....

                  but some times we humans get things wrong,.... the death penalty is irevocable.

                  there is no restitution, no re-do button

                  1. Cagsil profile image59
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey Jack?

                    You're personalizing it and that's your mistake. My hub on this topic has a specific pattern of implementation for the usage of this particular tool.

                    As I said in the beginning of this thread, I don't agree with the manner in which it is used.

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Nonsense. Rights are granted to individuals from whatever God you believe in.

                  No group of citizens can give a right away that they don't own.

                  Who's head is in the sand?

                  1. Cagsil profile image59
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yours apparently. roll

              2. garrettdixon profile image60
                garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If the government does not have the power to kill, what is war?

                1. garrettdixon profile image60
                  garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well the history is needed to understand how and why this practice originated.  It came out of a desire to have a peaceful and fair life for ones subjects. And so honestly you do not believe that rapists, kidnappers, torturers and those who commit treason do not deserved to be killed too?  You use the death penalty as if it were a last resort to only those that make this a common habit.  Life is a prescious thing, and death should not be the result of only the crime of murder that has been carried out multiple times.  Human life is a prescious thing.

                  1. Cagsil profile image59
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And I said I don't need a history lesson.
                    I don't care what desire it came from or why.
                    No I don't.
                    I said that it should only be used ON serial killers and/or mass murderers.
                    The burden shouldn't be pushed off on the rest of society either to house the completely demented serial killers and/or mass murderers.

                    Or are you missing something in what I am saying?
                    It isn't to them(serial killers and/or mass murderers).

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  War is evil

              3. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I dunno. Do you agree that I have the right to take my own life for any or no reason?

                If I have the right to take my own life, and you have the right to take your own life, then we have the right to delegate the right to take our lives to a 3rd party. We can also set conditions under which the 3rd party may take our lives, among which can be "a case in which one of us takes the life of another without their consent."

                So, if you agree with all of the above, we can delegate the right to execute a murderer to the state.

                But we still shouldn't.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Suicide is perfectly OK - you own your body and your life.

                  Assisted suicide is OK as well - but it MUST be COMPLETELY voluntary.

                  If you give permission to someone to kill you, then that is obviously OK because you own your body.

                  1. Quirinus profile image69
                    Quirinusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree with most of your stance, Evan, except this one.  With suicide, one loses the chance for a major metamorphosis that is called for by the soul, incomprehensible to the intellect. Nonetheless, I am of the belief that we have no right to judge those whose earthly destinies ended in the manner of a suicide. We don't know what lies beyond life on earth.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What purpose does execution seve? it is more costly than jailing for the term of natural life, it is irrevocable and it does not provide a deterrent, so while I am not massively bothered either way it seems more logical to just keep them locked up until they die.

      1. garrettdixon profile image60
        garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        To pay for cost of their capital crime.  Again, those studies are back and forth about which is cheaper, so you must base your support more on morals or some other matter.  Also, how can it not be a deterrent?  If death, the ultimate punishment, does not stop them, what would?

    3. kschang profile image89
      kschangposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The pros and cons have been pretty much debated to death already, but here are the basic arguments AGAINST capital punishment

      * it's irrevocable (once he's dead, you can't undo it)
      * its effectiveness as deterrence seems to be negligible (debatable)
      * its moral justification, again, is debatable depending on your viewpoint

      Some say "not in my name", i.e. they don't want the state executing any one, but it's a democracy, so does their voice count? And what about the victim's relatives? Would their say count more or less?

    4. LHwritings profile image88
      LHwritingsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      OK, here are a few reasons...

      • Capital punishment (execution) is the modern, "legal" form of lynching — it's overwhelmingly and disproportionately applied against black people and other "people of color", so in effect it's racist slaughter by the state.

      • This officially sanctioned killing basically sets an example and gives an object lesson that it's OK to kill somebody if you think you're in the right; therefore, it's probably encouraging a lot more killing and other violence within the society, not less.

      • Plenty of basically innocent people are ensnared by the criminal "justice" system, including quite a few convicted on false charges and put to death; death penalty enthusiasts seem to view this as just unfortunate "collateral damage" that must be tolerated to preserve the sanctity of the slaughter process.

      • Capital trials and executions seem to function as a kind of "blood sport" diversion, to divert public attention away from the underlying social and economic decay that breeds violence, murder, and other criminal behavior

      • State-decreed killing of prisoners is a barbaric practice, and taking our tax money to do it is outrageous, despicable, and disgusting.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Amen! Well stated.

  2. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    The present application for which it is being implemented.

    1. garrettdixon profile image60
      garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Could you explain this more?

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What needs to be explained? I don't like the manner in which the death penalty is being used or implemented. I have two hubs on the topic.

        1. garrettdixon profile image60
          garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How does eye for eye not work?  Its worked for thousands of years!  Oh, and surprisinngly, I do agree with you on that on thing, that our capital punishment now does have multiple problems with it lol.  And well must punishment always be completely civil (by your definition) if it is effective??  And accountability is not always effective though!  If a man contemplates a crime like murder in his mind enough, he will eventually make himself believe that it is justified, therefore, making him unaccountable.  Accountability would only work in a perfect world, which we both know is non-existent.

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Two wrongs don't make it right or didn't your parent ever teach you that?
            No it hasn't.
            Good to know.
            Yes, any punishment should be civil. Otherwise, how do you bring about a civil society?
            Accountability isn't always effective because parents, people like yourself, politicians, governments(state and federal) continue to distort too much.
            Yes it is understood that any idiot can rationalize to themselves what is justified and what is not. And, his or her own ego would be skewing that thought process. It still wouldn't make it right. Which is WHY people are made to answer to another authority other than self.
            No, a perfect world is possible, but a peaceful one IS possible, and accountability would work much more smoothly.

            1. garrettdixon profile image60
              garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              But there is NOT two wrongs.  There is one crime and then the reprimand for that crime.  So u agree. Your correct, it would not be right, but that man would rationalize it to be right in his own mind. So accountability would not affect him.  And we do answer to higher authority, again bringing up the idea of capital punishment!

  3. Charles James profile image82
    Charles Jamesposted 5 years ago

    We have so many miscarriages of justice in the UK that we now have a Criminal Cases Review Commission which investigates cases once they are presented with evidence that suggests someone might be innocent. If the CCRC thinks there is a case they lodge it with the Court of Appeal.

    There are quite a lot of cases where people who in the old days would have been hanged are serving life instead, and these guys are being released as they are cleared - sometimes after serving 20+ years for offences they did not commit.

    And of course Stephen Kisko who died in prison for an offence he could not have committed. Someone else has now been convicted on DNA evidence.

    And Timothy Evans who was hanged for a murder he did not commit. It was his case that led to abolition of the death penalty in the UK.

    Yes the death penalty is fairly cheap and fairly quick - but the bigger deterrent is the liklihood of getting caught.

  4. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I think it was Ron White who said that in Texas, "If 3 people saw you do it, you go to the head of the line."

    Acknowledged or not, we have 2 categories of guilty:

    1. "Yep, it obviously looks like you did it."

    and

    2. "We KNOW you damn well did it, sucker."


    I just thought I would toss that out there. big_smile

    1. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol!

  5. Sherry Hewins profile image94
    Sherry Hewinsposted 5 years ago

    Killing people is wrong. I don't want my government killing people in my name. It is NOT civilized, and it is not right.

    1. garrettdixon profile image60
      garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Killing people is wrong, which is why we have capital punishment in the first place.

  6. maxoxam41 profile image75
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    I believe in capital punishment for killers (when it is proven) and pedophiles.

    1. ShawnB2011 profile image60
      ShawnB2011posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ummm just throwing this out there but what about the Guy who spent over 20 years on death row only to be found innocent through DNA? if he didn't push the issue he would have been an innocent man put to death. And that just happened a year or two ago. Unfortunately many others pre-dna didn't get as lucky.

      1. garrettdixon profile image60
        garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sir, please read this. "...No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976... The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal..." Steven D. Stewart, JD. I'm sorry but the inevitability of error is one of the worst arguements for getting rid of capital punishment

      2. Kyle Payne profile image61
        Kyle Payneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As soon as the inevitability of error is taken into account, all others things with a government must be taken into account. If entities were dismantled on grounds purely relating to the inevitability of mans error there would be nothing except cynical man.

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    Many studies show that fear of capital punishment is not a deterrent for capital crimes.

    Nearly all other advanced civilized countries stopped executions long ago. My own state, Michigan, banned capital punishment more than 100 years ago.

    1. garrettdixon profile image60
      garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If you actually think about that, it makes no logical sense.  Death would be the ultimate punishment and if that would not make them fear, nothing would.  Also there are studies that it does deter crime. So that subject is back and forth and cant be completely proven unless you personally did your own experimental research.

      1. ShawnB2011 profile image60
        ShawnB2011posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well think about it, even in those countries that still carry out ancient traditions such beheadings, chopping off hands for stealing, stoning,  etc.. people STILL commit crimes regardless of punishment. In law enforcement there is a saying which is "it is better to let 1000 guilt men free than to lock up one innocent man." Sorry but I'd be pissed if they executed an innocent family member just it was a "mistake"

        1. garrettdixon profile image60
          garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Of course they do!  The world isn't perfect so it will never be free from all crime!  Also I agree with you that it would be a horrible thing that an innocent person be killed. But there is no proof that an innocent man has been unfairly executed.  But honestly would you rather have a few possible mistakes in the judgment, which is inevitable. Or would you rather get rid of the idea completely and let more of the guilty walk around free.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        My impression is that the most convincing studies cast doubt on the deterrent effect of capital punishment. They don't say that fear of capital punishment never deters crime. But premeditated killers don't believe they will be caught. Spur of the moment (a robbery gone wrong, a drunken spouse with a temper tantrum) capital criminals tend not to be thinking about the possibility of capital punishment. Drunks who pull guns outside a bar and shoot somebody are influenced more by alcohol than fear of capital punishment.

  8. seanorjohn profile image82
    seanorjohnposted 5 years ago

    Just look at the list of all those wrongly convicted and executed. Anyhow, isn't killing someone just wrong.

    1. OutWest profile image60
      OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      My thoughts exactly.  The justice system is really more to do with good lawyers and less about finding justice.  I just feel that no one has the right to kill, except in self defense.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't that the right to kill? Self preservation?

        1. OutWest profile image60
          OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But killing a killer, based on a court decision isn't what I  would call self preservation.

          1. profile image65
            logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Killing a killer just improves the chances of the rest of us surviving.

          2. emrldphx profile image60
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's societal self-preservation.

  9. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 5 years ago

    Thou shall not kill. I am not a christian but I have no issue with that commandment, lock them up and throw away the key if you like, its cheaper that way and if they are found innocent later then you can break down the door and let them out.

    1. garrettdixon profile image60
      garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is actually not proven that it is cheaper to put them in prison for life.  These studies batter back and forth though, constantly saying the opposite.  So, you have to base your support of it more on morals and constitutionality than anything else.

  10. profile image0
    Muldaniaposted 5 years ago

    Because murder is wrong, whether it be committed by an individual or the state.  No human has the right to take away the life of another.  For those individuals who have done so, they should in my opinion be behind bars for the rest of their lives, but to murder them would be trying to make two wrongs into a right.

    1. garrettdixon profile image60
      garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It would help if those commenting now would read all the past comments.  Again, there is not two wrongs here, theres the crime, and the already set in place punishment for that crime.  They DO have the right to take ones life, if it is for the betterment of those abiding in the law.  If its not right to kill using capital punishment, explain the moral decency of war?

  11. steveamy profile image60
    steveamyposted 5 years ago

    Because it is morally wrong, because the justice system is far from perfect, because it is cruel and unusual and we have a constitutional amendment against such things for a start....

    1. garrettdixon profile image60
      garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      1.  Prove to me how it is morally wrong.  2.  By your second statement, you are implying that there could be no government at all!!!!  Because it isn't and never will be perfect!!  Also, how is it cruel if it is instantaneous, and how is it unusual if its been done for thousands of years?  And lastly, "Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of harm' [quoting the opinion of the Court from Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 842, 846 (1994)] that qualifies as cruel and unusual"

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        1.  It is not hard to think of moral systems where killing is wrong for any reasons.  Like pacifism.
        2. Yes, it could easily be argued that irreversible and absolute forms justice should not be used because any mistake is unthinkable unjust.
        2.  Waiting ten years on death row before the sentence to be carried out is cruel. The use of a paralytic in the mix is pretty dubious too.

        Basically, it is a matter of personal ethics.

        p.s. ever thought of writing a hub?

        1. garrettdixon profile image60
          garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          True.  Also, I agree that the proccess of capital punishment used today DOES have some problems with it, but I believe the idea of an execution used as punishment is morally correct.  And yes, I will be posting one soon.

          1. garrettdixon profile image60
            garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That hub is up now.

  12. anonimuzz profile image82
    anonimuzzposted 5 years ago

    I don't see death as the ultimate punishment, especially when criminals in the death row are injected with anestethics to make it all comfortable and pretty. After they die, what are they going to feel? Anything (well, as far as we know). Why would that be so bad if they already did whatever they wanted to do with their lives? Being forced to spend their entire lives working to compensate the society they tried to wreck in the first place seems to be a better lesson, although probably harder/more expensive to implement. I'm not completely against the death penalty, but I can't say that I agree with it either. I think I'm mostly concerned about how it is being done today rather than the fact that they are doing it at all.

    1. garrettdixon profile image60
      garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, think logically for a moment.  If you say committed a crime and were given the choice of life in prison or death, which would you choose?  Only the insane or those who feel that their life is to horrible to continue would choose death.  Life is always the answer any man with common sense would choose.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So by your lights, anybody who expresses a desire to end his own life is by definition insane?

        1. Repairguy47 profile image61
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          that wasn't the only thing said.

        2. garrettdixon profile image60
          garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, or, if you would finish reading the sentence, feels that their life is to horrible to continue.  Which, this person may only need some counseling or psychological help, but yes not sane person naturally wants to die!  But that is off subject anyway.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, then according to you, under what conditions could someone want to end their own life, and still be considered sane?

            (And it's not at all off the subject, if we're talking about the possibility of delegating the authority to end one's life.)

            1. garrettdixon profile image60
              garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If they in the hospital or some place of the sort, and are going to die soon anyway, it would allow them to be rid of the pain and suffering that would inevitably come and end the same way.  And yes it is, this forum is on the right of the government to ends ones life, this is capital punishment, not assisted or not suicide.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "And yes it is, this forum is on the right of the government to ends ones life,"

                Exactly. One argument against the right of the government to end a citizen's life is the argument that only the person in question has the right to end his own life. Consider:

                1) An individual has the right to end his or her own life if he or she chooses.

                2) An individual does not have the right to end another person's life without that person's consent.

                3) A person may delegate his rights to a third party by a statement or by a legal instrument.

                4) The people collectively delegate various rights to the government.

                5) The people can delegate the authority to take their lives under certain conditions, for example, they can delegate the right to end their lives if they are convicted of murder. To avoid having the government exercise the right to end my life, I must avoid committing murder.

                So there's an argument that capital punishment is morally justifiable.

                I still don't think it's a great idea, but I can see that the argument makes sense.

                But it only makes sense if you agree that the people aren't insane for telling the government that it's okay to kill one of them if that one commits murder.

                See, 'cos that's what we're doing when we say it's okay for the government to execute a murderer: we are delegating to the government the right to kill us under certain conditions. Is that crazy?

            2. Castlepaloma profile image25
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Suicide is only the very last resort if the suffering toward near death is too great.

              Killing is a mentally illness unless to you run out of ideas to protect your own life, in which I can imagine running out of ideas, Killing never stop killing, killing only increases killing which is proven throughout the World'

      2. anonimuzz profile image82
        anonimuzzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I would choose life in prison. That way, I could figure out a way of sneaking out of prison and continuing to kill whoever I wanted, duhhhh.

        Garrett, even if I were sentenced with execution, that wouldn't instantly mean I'd get the lesson or feel repentance. My first thought would be 'Pfff, they're doing exactly what they're condemning me for. Bunch of hypocrites'.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image25
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes Hypocrites

          To kill someone to prove to the rest of us that killing is wrong

          1. emrldphx profile image60
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Your argument is wrong.

            We don't think that all killing is wrong. If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you and your family, you are justified in killing them instead.

            Murder is wrong.

            Killing someone to keep them from murdering again, being a burden on taxpayers, and to be a deterrent to others is not the same as 'Killing someone to show that killing is wrong'.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image25
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I did say, unless to you run out of ideas to protect your own life, in which I can imagine running out of ideas. My family and I  have been trained and prepared to protect ourselves. Over wise most of the time I'm not around them to protect.them anyways.

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It is overly simplistic to call a moral position "wrong" anyway.  Suggests that any further discussion will be fruitless as the individual does not accept any truth but their own.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Life in prison will keep convicted murderers from killing again. The best studies don't support the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

              1. anonimuzz profile image82
                anonimuzzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Better yet, life in prison might make convicted murderers kill each other, so it's a win-win situation anyway.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image25
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Or better still, help them with their mental illness

                  1. anonimuzz profile image82
                    anonimuzzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And that would be the ideal way of dealing with them, in my opinion smile I do understand the whole money/resources issue, though. On the other hand, considering all the useless investing and waste of money that goes on in governments everywhere, I'm sure they could come up with better solutions than the ones they have now.

  13. emrldphx profile image60
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    Anyone using examples of people cleared of wrongdoing are ignoring one simple fact. Those people are in the minority. If you want to look at them, you also need to look at all the innocent people who are murdered by ex-convicts.

    The biggest problem with the death penalty is how expensive it is. Our entire justice system costs a stupid amount of money, and convicts often end up with more rights than law-abiding citizens.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "convicts often end up with more rights than law-abiding citizens."

      How's that work? A convict can't go where he pleases, wear what he pleases, eat what he pleases, decide when to eat, when to sleep, when to shower, etc. He has no privacy. He must routinely submit to search. He is subject to prison discipline.

      It's preposterous to think a convict has more rights than you do.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image25
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Criminal or Hero, Runaway or Freeman,  history of slavery in the United States has turn to economic slavery of today. Outlaw heroes and their myths have always been with us, celebrated by the people but often ignored by historians.

        Take CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS for example was he a
        Hero OR Heel in which started North America piracy, slavery to Europe, and the Gold rush.

        When authority kill more people than the criminal do , you got a real serious problem

    2. garrettdixon profile image60
      garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      @ emrldphx, that is very true.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Anyone using examples of people cleared of wrongdoing are ignoring one simple fact. Those people are in the minority."

      Yeah, no big deal if we execute an innocent person once in a while. So what?

      1. garrettdixon profile image60
        garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you not understand that our government is not perfect because it is based on humans?  It isn't and never can be perfect, and by your statement, if we should get rid of it because innocent people are wrongly convicted, then we should get rid of all government because a few people will always be accidentally punished.  Its not that the few dont matter, its that the majority matters more.

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If getting killed is a punishment, death is a lifestyle choice and rigor mortis is a medical condition.

          Some people can;t live with the inevitability of occasionally murdering a completely innocent person. Perhaps because they realize it could be them.

          1. garrettdixon profile image60
            garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Can you think of a greater punishment then death?  That would actually be allowed?

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You seem to be completely missing the point.  That there is a level of punishment some feel is too great to apply unless 100% accuracy can be achieved.

              You can't compensate some-one for wrongly killing them.

              Agreeing with this (or otherwise) is a matter of ethics.

              Comprehending it as a position is merely a matter of intellect.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image25
                Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Simpy intellect

                Murder Rate in Death Penalty States have 4% higher murder rate than in non death penalty state. Take it up one more step; the USA has 4% of the world’s population and 26% of the world’s jails.
                Time to follow other countries example of crime control, unless USA like to rob their own bank account

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ah, I agree that our government is far from perfect. Good government is a rare commodity. Perfect government doesn't exist. Why do you support an admittedly flawed, barbaric punishment when there is a less costly and more perfect punishment, i.e., life imprisonment? Why do many or most "right to lifers" support capital punishment? Just for the record, what's your position on abortion?

          1. garrettdixon profile image60
            garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            @ psycheskinner, that is not missing the point, 100% is impossible, but that shouldnt mean we rid our country of the punishment. 

            And @ ralph deeds,  Yes i agree that our capital punishment now does need to fix some problems.  But the price arguement is not a very valid one, seeing that either side says the evidence falls in their favor.  And abortion im not decided on seeing i do not know the definition or changing point where a fetus changes into an actual person.

        3. Evan G Rogers profile image79
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          People don't have the right to kill, and government is merely individuals giving up certain rights to the collective.

          Somehow, however, the collective has come to claim a right that could never have been given to it.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image25
            Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            agree

          2. garrettdixon profile image60
            garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Listen to yourself.  If people don't have the right to kill, then someone has to enforce that law!  Government can't and shouldn't be ruled by computers, therefore the people in government DO have the right to kill as a punishment for offenders.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image25
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I would not trust the USA Government in killing anyone with their murder rate being 4 times higher than all of Europe combined.

              Why not lock up GW Bush for breaking the Guinness book of world record for most death penalty execution. Let alone killing 100s of thousands of poor people in the Middle East.

              If an old politician can’t strangle their own hobos to death with their own bare hands in some USA ghetto back alley. Then WHY allow them to send young troops to drop bread and bombs on women and children on their soil in the Middle East?

              Mental illness, I say, to put it kindly

              1. garrettdixon profile image60
                garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You are entirely off topic.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image25
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You don't see the USA Politician or Government having any connections with death penalties or with great killing addiction beginning in 1960 this high rates of the 20th century compared to parts of Western ....countries, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. You do see how connection with world record death sentence murder cases have anything to do with up stairs, or Half the world's war budget or why US has 26% of the World jails.

                  How do you know this is not all crowd control from high office? Off topic, myyyy......askkk me no questions and  I'll tell you no lies.

                  1. garrettdixon profile image60
                    garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Calm down, I was merely saying the "strangling hobos" was too far fetched.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Since when is "enforcing the law" equivalent to "killing people".

              I will concede that when someone is enforcing the law, then a law-enforcement individual might have to kill someone -- almost always in defense -- but the two are not synonymous as you are suggesting.

              If you value property rights, then you have to agree that murder in any situation other than self-defense is wrong.

              1. garrettdixon profile image60
                garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The government is taking the place of the deceased and protecting them and others by eliminating the threat.  It would be the same as if a terrorist killed someone.  The government steps in and eliminates the problem to protects its people.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What about locking them up?

                  Remember that?

                  NOT murdering people?

                  Yeah, that still exists.

                  1. garrettdixon profile image60
                    garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Some crimes are so wrong, after they are committed that criminal doesn't deserve to live.

  14. barryrutherford profile image33
    barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago

    I have several well researched hubs on the topic

  15. profile image58
    Goblin Marketposted 5 years ago

    It is more expensive to put someone to death, than to incarcerate them for life, thanks for massive state legal expenses and very low expense for prisoners.  there is one reason.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's one practical reason, but it's not the main reason. The practice is immoral and uncivilized.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image61
        Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Let me guess, you're pro-abortion?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No. I'm pro choice. I'm not a fan of abortions, but the government and men like you should stay out of this issue which should be up to the woman.

    2. garrettdixon profile image60
      garrettdixonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That statement isn't proven.

  16. chipsball profile image60
    chipsballposted 5 years ago

    At one point severals years ago Harris County, Texas led the entire country in capital murder convictions resulting in the death penalty being rendered by the jury. The county's numbers surpassed the combinations of many states.

    When one ask whether or not they should or should not support the death penalty in any case one must consider in the argument several points.

    I start from the premise that no one could possibly know what decision they would personally render if on a capital murder jury and faced with the ultimate decision affecting the life or death of another individual...another human being. The pressure is tremendous on the jury and the balance of justice is weighted against the defendant...in this why.

    During the time Harris County, Texas was leading the nation in death convictions and even today state law requires that any prospective juror affirm they can follow the law and render a death verdict if the states proves certain elements to them beyond a reasonable doubt during the punishment phase of the trial. If during the jury selection process you as a prospective juror cannot state this unequivocally you will not be allowed to sit on the jury panel.(You can't follow the law) So you might take the initial view that I couldn't vote death under any circumstances...I would submit that you don't know really know until you are faced with making the decision.
    Now, if you combine the weighted pro-death penalty jurors you are most likely to get on the panel, county residents willing to spend the tax dollars and a Harris County District Attorney Office pressing for death conviction... this would likely explain the high numbers mentioned.

    The point of the discussion appeared to be the hubber torn between supporting or not supporting the death penalty. I would submit that one's pont of view could change by either being a witness at an execution or making the ultimate decision as a juror when actually faced with making the decision.

 
working