Can anyone tell me a reason not to believe in capital punishment?
"...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
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.
And you're logic is flawed because you bring it to an individual level.
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.
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.
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
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.
Does the way in which an idea is used dictate that the idea is wrong?
By all accounts the death penalty/capital punishment shouldn't need to be used for a civilized society. It's absurd to use, if in fact we live in a civilized society. A civilized society wouldn't have as much killing going on as it does.
Anyone who wants to call America or the world for that fact, Civilized? Should have their head examined.
And, yes, an idea and the action behind it can be morally wrong. The biggest argument about the death penalty/capital punishment is that "killing someone who killed someone else, to show that killing is wrong" is absurd.
My answer to that is in my hubs I wrote on the topic. I don't want "eye for an eye" mentality to continue to rule over people. It's ignorant and as Ghandi said, it makes everyone blind. The implementation of this type of sentence should be used in a manner which is for the greater good of society until it is no longer necessary.
first let me say that you and i actual agree whole hartedly on the subject of captil punishment,.... i just dont see how personalizing it is wrong,.... in fact,... our aprouch to mechanizing it through the legal system and corrections system have tried very hard to de-personalize it,...
and there in lies the problem,.... it is,by its nature very personal to kill someone,.... wether out of hatred, or revenge,..... with a blade up close or a bullet from 1000 yards off,.... or by casting a vote or pushing a button,....
weve tried to de-personalize it because we want make somethingthat we know in our DNA is wrong,.... seem not uite soo bad,..... we want to rationalize that sick feeling away.
i'm very sorry if you dissagree that it should be personalized,... and from what of your writing i've read i can see that you some times take an impersonal technical aproach to things,.... and thats great,.... truth needs a technitian,..... but truth also needs passion.
Really? You honestly believe that no ancient empires were civilized? Capital punishment is not a new idea, it has been around ever since time began. And yes, we are killing killers, but this is not because of revenge or any other type of getting back it. This is because killing and other capital crimes are wrong of the highest degree, therefore deserving punishment of the highest degree. And I think you also would agree with me that this punishment is death. Capital punishment can be described in one word, RETRIBUTION. This is defined as what is considered to be morally right and fully deservable. It is simply the payment for the wrong committed.
I don't believe it. I know they were not and couldn't have been.
I'm fully aware of how long it's been around and certainly don't need a history lesson.
It's only when we stopping viewing as that, is when we can actually enter a serious discussion on the subject.
Then it seems like that what is "considered" a capital crime is yet another thing that must be changed. Now doesn't it?
The only ones in which the death penalty/capital punishment should apply to are serial killers and/or mass murderers. That's it.
That would be ignorance talking without understanding the greater good and that state of society overall.
In who's book? Humanity? Society? Individually?
To be honest, the death penalty would NOT be in existence in a civilized society. It would have NO use whatsoever.
In a manner of speaking as it is used now, that wrong is an eye for eye, unless the implementation is changed to not be.
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?
Cagsil must be either a liberal or a thief because he has no qualms with selling things that aren't his.
If you don't like the fact that the collective can rule over the individual for the greater good of the collective, then I think you have a problem, bigger than you realize.
I realize that you want full and total independence for individual rights, but it is impossible in any structured social environment.
And, as to being a liberal? No, I am not. As to being a thief? I am not that either. It has nothing to do with selling something which isn't mine.
If you actually could base your argument rationally, then I would give you credit for some sort of intelligence. Your irrational thought process behind full unadulterated individual rights isn't going to happen in a socialized structured environment. It's absurd to think it would.
Cagsil, read this back to yourself and you have to admit , you have written nonsense. Don't worry, we all get tired. But you need to lie down and take a rest. Happy new year.
This is your argument:
A group of people 500 miles away make a club.
They come to you to you and say "Hey, we made a great club, it's called the USA"
You say to them "Oh,... um... great, congratulations! Please leave me alone"
They say "No, you don't understand. You're a member of this group"
You say "No, I'm not"
Then they say, "well, let's vote". And they vote on whether you're a member. There are 12 of them, and one of you. For whatever reason, 2 of them vote 'no', but all in all, 9 out of 13 say that you ARE a member.
"Well, that's settled. Now - that TV you have there. We're going to take it and sell it. It's called 'taxation', and now that you're a member you have to pay taxes."
"What?! No! That's my TV!", you protest.
You all vote again, and the result is 12 of 13 decide to take your TV. They then sell it for 1/5th of what it was worth, and divide the money amongst themselves.
One of them gives a few cents to a child.
When you bring a gun to get your money back, they retort with "You hate children".
And, there you have it: Cagsil's "the majority may rule over the minority, and you're an idiot if you disagree" America.
I already know that you're going to protest my statement, but I followed all of your rules to the T, and I even made it relevant to real history. This situation is ENTIRELY plausible AND acceptable with your philosophy.
My philosophy says that this is wrong and evil.
We'll let the readers of the forum decide who's right.
This will be my only reply to Evan. Due to fact that you've no clue with regards to protecting the greater good, much less, know what the greater good is to begin with. When you want to bring a rational argument to the table. Then, just maybe you would might be up for the discussion, but until then I'm not going to waste my time.
End of story.
"The greater good"?!
That's hilarious!! That's the same argument that Hitler, Mao AND Stalin used to enslave their populace!!
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS DIED.
Great stuff, great stuff.
And you're straight out of the labor unions. Fascism is when private property is protected, but it is organized and used for the sole purpose of the government - y'know, the "many".
Also, embarassingly, I have yet to finish any of Rand's books. The stories kind of drag on. "The good entrepreneur" gets hampered by "the evil government bureaucrat" who is in the pocket of "the bad entrepreneur". LOL, I got it. 1000 pages of that? no thanks.
I could hunt down quotes from the Fascist leaders to discuss how they viewed the importance of the greater good, but to do so would be pointless because everyone knows it.
Attempts to help the greater good through collective measures is fascist / socialist; and attempts to make the help the greater good through liberty and individual rights is capitalist / libertarian.
Cagsil's argument that the collective government can make kill because of "the greater good" is a fascist argument.
Sorry, Deeds. I know that A Priori reasoning is difficult, but it's usually the best way to understand things when human thinking is involved. Y'know... like... economics?
I hope I never get falsely framed for murder, with Cagsil on the jury
If the government does not have the power to kill, what is war?
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.
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).
Well, apparently you do, because your points against it do not pertain to the subject because they are not the way it is used presently. And that may be a problem with your morals then too, because these crimes are just as heinous. I would also like to ask you to just for a moment put yourself in the place of part of a victims family. I can almost promise you that your thoughts and intensities on the subject would change at least slightly.
Do YOU have a reading comprehension problem? Or are you just trying to try my patience? I already said I don't agree with it's implementation.
You're telling me I have something wrong with my morals and I'm trying cut down it's use, yet you're telling me that life is precious? I think you're one confused individual.
Morals by meaning that you do not think that those other horrid crimes commited are also worth death! Also you cannot confuse forgiveness with punishment. Life is prescious which is why when someone takes anothers life, he must be punished for it. The punishment for that crime in our country is death! That is not immoral, that is the result of wrong and its payment. It is not killing the criminal in revenge but as a standard for what is right and wrong and the result of your action is you choose the wrong.
No, I only think that serial killers and/or mass murderers are the ones who should be executed for the greater good of society.
Where in the world did you come up with that? I'm not about to get into a discussion about forgiveness, because you wouldn't like it.
He would be punished for taking someone else's life. S/he would spend life in prison, instead of giving up his/her life. Eye for an eye doesn't work.
Again, I don't need you to tell me what the punishment is. And, I've already said I don't agree with what is considered a capital crime and I don't agree with the implementation of the sentence- death penalty/capital punishment.
Why are you making me repeat myself? With that said, I will ask you again, are you actually trying to wear out my patience?
BS. So far it's about control over people attempting to put the fear of death into people, because if they commit a specific crime then they will be executed and they will not have to contemplate what they have done because their life will be over with when executed. That's a sort of punishment, but not civilized.
Accountability is what it's about and when people refuse to hold themselves accountable for their own actions, which is NEVER in the case of serial killers or mass murderers, then these sorts need to be put down.
It's not about revenge. It's about eliminating those who do DO the most damage and never giving them another chance of ever doing it again.
Edit: If need be I'll respond further after I have slept. Good bye.
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.
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.
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.
" With suicide, one loses the chance for a major metamorphosis that is called for by the soul, incomprehensible to the intellect."
Unprovable. Perhaps true, but unless you can prove its truth, the argument is irrelevant except in a theocracy.
I must admit that I missed the scientific journal which proves this.
In either way, I think we can both agree that an individual owns their body.
I jump to the conclusion "thus they can break their body, just like a pencil they own"
And you do not.
MEH! Suicide isn't really a big issue to me.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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."
2. "We KNOW you damn well did it, sucker."
I just thought I would toss that out there.
Killing people is wrong. I don't want my government killing people in my name. It is NOT civilized, and it is not right.
I believe in capital punishment for killers (when it is proven) and pedophiles.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
Just look at the list of all those wrongly convicted and executed. Anyhow, isn't killing someone just wrong.
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.
Isn't that the right to kill? Self preservation?
But killing a killer, based on a court decision isn't what I would call self preservation.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. 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. 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?
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.
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.
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.
So by your lights, anybody who expresses a desire to end his own life is by definition insane?
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.
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.)
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.
"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?
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'
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'.
To kill someone to prove to the rest of us that killing is wrong
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'.
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.
Life in prison will keep convicted murderers from killing again. The best studies don't support the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
Better yet, life in prison might make convicted murderers kill each other, so it's a win-win situation anyway.
Or better still, help them with their mental illness
And that would be the ideal way of dealing with them, in my opinion 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.
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.
"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.
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
"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?
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.
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.
Can you think of a greater punishment then death? That would actually be allowed?
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.
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
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?
@ 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's one practical reason, but it's not the main reason. The practice is immoral and uncivilized.
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.
by Cat R5 years ago
Supporters say that some crimes deserve the Death Penalty and that we are spending too much money to keep prisoners comfortable in prisons. That there are too many people that don't have cable, a home, free education...
by Don W5 years ago
In jurisdictions that maintain capital punishment are the rates of aggravated murder and felony murder lower than in jurisdictions where capital punishment has been banned?
by lizistanton7 years ago
If a man commits a crime and sentenced to prison, he is sentenced to much more: sexual assault, physical assault, malnutrition, lack of medical care, pain, lack of mental health care and isolation from...
by kirstenblog5 years ago
There is a forum topic that is current right now about a woman who committed a terrible crime against another human being. The topic discusses the punishment/rehabilitation and what should be done in these cases.It got...
by KyleBear6 years ago
I've been advocating against death penalty since the beginning of time. Here are reasons why I believe it should be abolished.Please do feel free to share your views here too. This thread is about communicating and...
by TruthDebater7 years ago
How does a government and society expect people to value all life including themselves and each other, while at the same time, the government can influence and enforce the death penalty and abortion? If people see...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.