Should there be a death penalty?

[guitarlifter]

I personally hate the death penalty, but I'm not sure if it's better or not to have it. It possibly is a better deterrence for crime than life in prison, but, as a Christian, I believe that it would be doing a disservice to God to kill someone without giving them the fullest chance possible to work their salvation out. As a man who goes into prisons weekly and meets people who have murdered their own parents but are truly saved, I know that it is possible to become saved, no matter how far one falls.

Killing criminals would be cheaper than having them in prison for life, which does put a tax burden on someone, and that's wrong as well. I just feel like I'm "damned if I do. Damned if I don't."

What do you guys think?

[ivflight]

Killing criminals would be cheaper than having them in prison for life, which does put a tax burden on someone, and that's wrong as well.

Not always true.

[james1906]

Voted yes. I'm opposed to the government killing people, but I have no problem with the execution of corrupt public officials.

[jmhudak17]

I'm torn on this. I'm fine with executing those that have murdered others, but I feel like the government is too incompetent to be 100% sure that we're not executing innocent people. I think it should be used sparingly.

[guitarlifter]

Not always true.

How so? I'm asking out of ignorance.

[ARealConservative]

I'm not real popular with many of these beliefs, but I do accept capital punishment.


it gets down to the fundamental issue of what separates us from animals. If a person continually demonstrates that he possesses none of the qualities that separates him from animals, his right to life becomes something I don't care to protect.

and yes, I know this is a major slippery slope into horrible tyranny, which is why I don't really argue strongly for it.

[Cutlerzzz]

Unlike a prisoner, a man falsely executed can never be brought back.

What is more important, one innocent man being executed or 100 guilty men spending their lives in prison?

[dannno]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAXAsg4RvdI

[dannno]

Voted yes. I'm opposed to the government killing people, but I have no problem with the execution of corrupt public officials.

So you want to give the government the power to execute Ron Paul? (note: Ron Paul is not corrupt, but they could certainly manufacture something)

[Sentient Void]

I'd prefer to use those on death row as entertainment a la gladiator style or 'Running Man', otherwise, yes on executions for serial killers and murderers who are proud of their crimes, or would clearly do it again. Some people you just need to put down as rabid animals.

In regards to justice, I advocate at least 'an eye for an eye' or 'a tooth for a tooth' for malicious acts. Perhaps even 'two teeth for a tooth', so that which was taken away by the perpetrator will be taken away from him.

If someone steals money or property worth whatever value, it's not enough to just take it back and give it back to the victim, plus pain and suffering, etc, to make the victim 'whole'. Since the offender has deprived the property of the victim, perhaps the offender must be deprived of the same amount of property and granted to the victim in addition to what was stolen and also for 'pain and suffering', inconvenience, lost wages, lawyer fees, etc.

If the offender can't pay, then he gets put to indentured servitude to work that amount off to make restitution.

If the offender raped someone, he gets raped, twice over, if the victim desires. Perhaps by a hired professional rapist - who knows. If he cut off someone's finger, he gets two fingers cut off by the victim, or by someone the victim specifies (the government, a defense agency, a professional of some sort, etc).

It wouldn't be perfect, and there would be some instances where people can't be truly made 'whole', but it would be a helluva lot better than what we have now, IMO. Of course, the victim would have the option of forgiveness, as well - but he could require restitution or punishment *up to* the 'two teeth for a tooth' rule.

[ARealConservative]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAXAsg4RvdI

"for federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty"

[dannno]

How so? I'm asking out of ignorance.

They want to make sure prisoners who are convicted of the death penalty are actually guilty by giving them time and allowing them to appeal and re-appeal their case every so often. If some evidence comes up, or there is some question to the case, they figure this system is the best possible way to ensure that they deserve their sentence.

There is also a lot of cost to the actual execution, especially electric chair, but the other procedures cost a lot as well. But between this and the appeals, they figured out it costs more to execute them then to house and feed them for the rest of their lives.

[dannno]

"for federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty"

Has he ever said he would vote for the death penalty at the state level?

Ron Paul will also make the statement quite often giving states the right to determine drug laws. But if you talk to him about it in another context, he will say that individuals should have the right to consume what they want, implying that he would agree with decriminalization at the state level as well.

[ARealConservative]

Has he ever said he would vote for the death penalty at the state level?

Ron Paul will also make the statement quite often giving states the right to determine drug laws. But if you talk to him about it in another context, he will say that individuals should have the right to consume what they want, implying that he would agree with decriminalization at the state level as well.

has he ever said he would vote against it at the state level?

All I know is who once supported the death penalty at the federal level and now he doesn't.

[dannno]

If the offender raped someone, he gets raped, twice over, if the victim desires. Perhaps by a hired professional rapist - who knows.

What is a professional rapist?

[dannno]

I mean, are we letting this "professional rapist" just live with everyone else in society? Don't they belong in jail too? (notice I didn't say "doesn't HE belong in jail", we should give equal opportunity to women to be professional rapists, right?)

[guitarlifter]

What is a professional rapist?

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/323/kobej.jpg

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Used to be one of those idiotic 'Death penalty is a deterrent' believers. Now, I sure as fuck don't want that blood on my hands.

[james1906]

So you want to give the government the power to execute Ron Paul? (note: Ron Paul is not corrupt, but they could certainly manufacture something)

It's probably best to not list government officials needing execution on a public forum.

[ARealConservative]

I mean, are we letting this "professional rapist" just live with everyone else in society? Don't they belong in jail too? (notice I didn't say "doesn't HE belong in jail", we should give equal opportunity to women to be professional rapists, right?)

not to change the subject too bad, but why is rape elevated above and beyond assault?

I think one of the problems with how rape victims don't like to come forward is the social ostracization of their particular form of assault being of a sexual variety but it still boils down to assault.

[ARealConservative]

Used to be one of those idiotic 'Death penalty is a deterrent' believers. Now, I sure as fuck don't want that blood on my hands.

wait, a dead person can still violate your rights?

seems like his being dead is a tremendous deterrent to doing further damage

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

seems like his being dead is a tremendous deterrent to doing further damage

And if that person was innocent of the crime? Are you okay with having their death on your hands?

[ARealConservative]

And if that person was innocent of the crime? Are you okay with having their death on your hands?

this sophomoric argument works both ways.

if this person kills again, are you okay with the additional death being on your hands?

[dannno]

has he ever said he would vote against it at the state level?

All I know is who once supported the death penalty at the federal level and now he doesn't.

In the examples he used about rich people getting away with it and poor people being executed more, do you think he was talking only about federal murder cases? I didn't get the impression that he was. Ron Paul lives in a TX and there are a lot of executions there, he has seen a lot of mistakes made, and I don't think he was considering whether they were at the federal level or the state level, in fact when was the last time a poor person was finally acquitted of committing murder against a federal officer or on federal property after DNA evidence showed otherwise? Probably never, but certainly not a lot.

I think Ron Paul's stance is that the states should decide, but as long as we have the war on drugs and other government programs that increase poverty and crime, especially among minorities, I think he would like to see no death penalty at the state level. That's what I got from his argument. If we lived in a more free, just and prosperous society, he might change his mind and support the death penalty at the state level.

[ARealConservative]

In the examples he used about rich people getting away with it and poor people being executed more, do you think he was talking only about federal murder cases? I didn't get the impression that he was. Ron Paul lives in a TX and there are a lot of executions there, he has seen a lot of mistakes made, and I don't think he was considering whether they were at the federal level or the state level, in fact when was the last time a poor person was finally acquitted of committed murder against a federal officer or on federal property after DNA evidence showed otherwise? Probably never.

I think Ron Paul's stance is that the states should decide, but as long as we have the war on drugs and other government programs that increase poverty and crime, especially among minorities, I think he would like to see no death penalty at the state level. If we lived in a more free, just and prosperous society, he might change his mind and support the death penalty at the state level.

+rep

[guitarlifter]

I'd prefer to use those on death row as entertainment a la gladiator style or 'Running Man', otherwise, yes on executions for serial killers and murderers who are proud of their crimes, or would clearly do it again. Some people you just need to put down as rabid animals.

In regards to justice, I advocate at least 'an eye for an eye' or 'a tooth for a tooth' for malicious acts. Perhaps even 'two teeth for a tooth', so that which was taken away by the perpetrator will be taken away from him.

If someone steals money or property worth whatever value, it's not enough to just take it back and give it back to the victim, plus pain and suffering, etc, to make the victim 'whole'. Since the offender has deprived the property of the victim, perhaps the offender must be deprived of the same amount of property and granted to the victim in addition to what was stolen and also for 'pain and suffering', inconvenience, lost wages, lawyer fees, etc.

If the offender can't pay, then he gets put to indentured servitude to work that amount off to make restitution.

If the offender raped someone, he gets raped, twice over, if the victim desires. Perhaps by a hired professional rapist - who knows. If he cut off someone's finger, he gets two fingers cut off by the victim, or by someone the victim specifies (the government, a defense agency, a professional of some sort, etc).

It wouldn't be perfect, and there would be some instances where people can't be truly made 'whole', but it would be a helluva lot better than what we have now, IMO. Of course, the victim would have the option of forgiveness, as well - but he could require restitution or punishment *up to* the 'two teeth for a tooth' rule.

People can change over time, and this includes people who seem like there's no point of return from where they are. Like I said, I've met people who have killed their own parents, but, by the grace of God, they have changed into truly Christian individuals, where, otherwise, these people wouldn't have had a chance to make a change. I don't know about you, but I highly value someone's salvation.

Besides that point, I don't think that the two-fold punishment idea may be enough for punishment. If I steal something, and I only have to return two-fold's worth of the thing I stole, that probably wouldn't deter me from trying to steal it again, especially if there was a higher chance of success than 50%. If I try to steal a $60 game from Walmart every week, and I only have a 25% chance of getting caught, given their detection techniques, I still get away with 50% the value of what I stole.

I think it's awfully fair to have a light punishment for the first offense for lesser crimes, but to increase the punishment significantly afterward. As a person who has gone through the penal system, just the fact of getting caught greatly deterred me from committing a certain "crime" (steroid possession) again because it made me realize that big brother is watching me. Now the morality of criminalizing steroid possession is another argument in itself, but the fact that one is caught is often enough deterrence. Maybe doing what you're talking about could be used for a first offense, but, after that, things have to get worse for repeat offenders.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

this sophomoric argument works both ways.

Are you fucking smoking crack or something? What the fuck kind of bullshit is this?


if this person kills again, are you okay with the additional death being on your hands?

Answer my goddamn question first.

[TER]

I'm not real popular with many of these beliefs, but I do accept capital punishment.


it gets down to the fundamental issue of what separates us from animals. If a person continually demonstrates that he possesses none of the qualities that separates him from animals, his right to life becomes something I don't care to protect.

But wouldn't killing each other make us more like animals?

[Brian4Liberty]

Like so many other issues, the death penalty works in theory, but not in practice.

- the power to kill is too much power, and it corrupts.
- when corrupted, it can be used politically.
- innocent people are often executed, and that can't be reversed.
- like a lot of our justice system, it is not administered fairly or evenly, certain groups are targeted.
- due to the legal system, it is often more expensive to execute than to leave in prison.
- the Justice system should be rational and impartial, not a system of vengence.

There are some people that need to be permanently removed from society. Life in prison is the best option we have.
-

[ARealConservative]

But wouldn't killing each other make us more like animals?

we already kill animals and claim it is ok because they don't possess a key component that humans possess, but where is the belief that all humans possess this key component ever proven?

[ARealConservative]

Like so many other issues, the death penalty works in theory, but not in practice.
-

you can say the same for incarceration. the unsavory after effect is a person is generally less able to fit into society after he is locked up then before.


There are some people that need to be permanently removed from society. Life in prison is the best option we have.

prison is a society in of itself. you are just removing people from your society and putting them in someone elses society.

[TER]

we already kill animals and claim it is ok because they don't possess a key component that humans possess, but where is the belief that all humans possess this key component ever proven?

From our belief that man is made in the image of God.

[AxisMundi]

I personally hate the death penalty, but I'm not sure if it's better or not to have it. It possibly is a better deterrence for crime than life in prison, but, as a Christian, I believe that it would be doing a disservice to God to kill someone without giving them the fullest chance possible to work their salvation out. As a man who goes into prisons weekly and meets people who have murdered their own parents but are truly saved, I know that it is possible to become saved, no matter how far one falls.

Killing criminals would be cheaper than having them in prison for life, which does put a tax burden on someone, and that's wrong as well. I just feel like I'm "damned if I do. Damned if I don't."

What do you guys think?

While I respect your position, a criminal is a criminal for breaking criminal laws in this Nation, not for breaking your god's commandments. Being "saved" simply matter not, especially for the victims.

That said, I do not agree with the death penalty for a number of reasons. Among them...

1. We have gone from a Nation of "innocent until proven guilty..." to a country of "guilty until proven to have the better lawyer".

2. Death is no punishment, it is over too quickly.

I advocate a complete restructuring of our entire penal system. Rehabilitation has proven itself to be a failed system. Inmates become institutionalized and some commit crimes soon after being released, either unchanged by said rehabilitation, or as a means to get back in on purpose.

Quite simply, prison needs to become a punishment once more.

Besides a restructuring of our prison system, we must restructure our laws as well. Examples? Eliminate pot/coke possession as a crime. Increase punishment for crimes against a person, ie murder and/or rape. ATM, a convict can get more years for grand larceny than murder under certain circumstances.

Super-max style prisons across the board is what I suggest. One person per cell, no contact with other inmates, and hour of shower and sunshine a day. No cable TV, no weights, no congenial visits, none of that.

Let a murder stew in his own juices in such a prison for the rest of his life and slowly go insane.

[ARealConservative]

From our belief that man is made in the image of God.

please don't turn this into a theological debate, many of us reject it outright.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Not opposed to the concept of it at all. But the cost of ten or more years worth of appeals makes it not really worth it. Used to be not that long ago in this country someone sentenced to death would be executed within months.

[guitarlifter]

this sophomoric argument works both ways.

if this person kills again, are you okay with the additional death being on your hands?

There's a big difference. If you give someone the death penalty, and they end up being innocent, the blood is on your hands because you made a decision based upon events that had already happened, and it was your responsibility to find out the truth. If a man serves 50 years in prison for third-degree murder, and he gets out and kills again, the blood is not on your hands because you could not foresee this person's future actions (you are not responsible for seeing the future), and they paid their dues. One cannot take away rights or give punishment based on what this person MIGHT do again. It isn't fair to kill a man who doesn't deserve to die by reasoning that this person might violate someone else's rights again. This is basically sacrificing freedom for safety. Benjamin Franklin once said that, "those who are willing to trade freedom for safety will lose both and deserve neither." You cannot punish a person beyond what they deserve for safety reasons. Doing such things is simply tyrannical and has a lot of ties with neoconservatism.

[TER]

2. Death is no punishment, it is over too quickly.

And you gloat about this? Lord have mercy.

[EvilEngineer]

Everyone already has a death sentence... most just have the luxury that they don't know when their day of execution is. Be you young, old, black, white, religious, atheist, rich, poor, criminal or saint Death will not discriminate against you.

Fear of death is irrational, as it is an inevitability for all that lives. A few years amended or subtracted makes no difference in the end. Where by we slip into the edge of eternity nothing that we have done even collectively will matter.

So yes, I am for the death penalty.

[TER]

please don't turn this into a theological debate, many of us reject it outright.

Should I just leave then? I can not have a voice? Here we are talking about executions and the mention of God becomes anathema? Lord have mercy!

[AxisMundi]

And you gloat about this? Lord have mercy.

I do not buy into your religion, so it is not "gloating".

[ARealConservative]

Should I just leave then? I can not have a voice? Here we are talking about executions and the mention of God becomes anathema? Lord have mercy!

I'm not going to ask you to leave, but I will simply point out that I asked for proof of something, and scripture isn't even close to proof.

[AxisMundi]

Should I just leave then? I can not have a voice? Here we are talking about executions and the mention of God becomes anathema? Lord have mercy!

We are not a theodemocracy, theonomy, or outright theocracy, so once you take your god and your religion out of the realm of personal opinions and attempt to apply your religious beliefs to US Law your religion and your god simply do not apply.

[mtj458]

Used to be very against it, I'm undecided now though.

I'm against the execution itself. The death penalty also deters murders and those lives are just as important, so it's ethically ambiguous to me. There's something to be said that I'd rather a murderer be killed than an innocent person and that I'd prefer one death to two or three.

It's more expensive in the US to execute than life in prison is thanks to the methods we use for execution, so that's a utilitarian argument against it.

And yes, we might kill innocent people. We might also kill innocent people from driving, but I'm not ready to make that illegal based on the same cost-benefit analysis. Again on the same lines, we may convict innocent people for life in prison, but that doesn't mean we should have no jails (and yes, I know some here are against jails. I'm not). An innocent person with a life term could potentially be released, but its very unlikely. It should definitely be a states issue, but I have no huge problem with either decision and I'm not ready to say for sure yet.

[Bman]

There's a big difference. If you give someone the death penalty, and they end up being innocent, the blood is on your hands because you made a decision based upon events that had already happened. If a man serves 50 years in prison for third-degree murder, and he gets out and kills again, the blood is not on your hands because you could not foresee this person's future actions, and they paid their dues. One cannot take away rights or give punishment based on what this person MIGHT do again. It isn't fair to kill a man who doesn't deserve to die by reasoning that this person might violate someone else's rights again. This is basically sacrificing freedom for safety. Benjamin Franklin once said that, "those who are willing to trade freedom for safety will lose both and deserve neither." You cannot punish a person beyond what they deserve for safety reasons. Doing such things is simply tyrannical and has a lot of ties with neoconservatism.

I'm nor so sure I'd say it's that simple. Take for instance Jeffrey Dhamer. Is it really a question of "if he MIGHT have done it again?" It may be fair to say a first time murderer is exempt of being charged with a death penalty, but 2 or more would seem to be a trend.

[AxisMundi]

Used to be very against it, I'm undecided now though.

I'm against the execution itself. The death penalty also deters murders and those lives are just as important, so it's ethically ambiguous to me. There's something to be said that I'd rather a murderer be killed than an innocent person and that I'd prefer one death to two or three.

It's more expensive in the US to execute than life in prison is thanks to the methods we use for execution, so that's a utilitarian argument against it.

And yes, we might kill innocent people. We might also kill innocent people from driving, but I'm not ready to make that illegal based on the same cost-benefit analysis. Again on the same lines, we may convict innocent people for life in prison, but that doesn't mean we should have no jails (and yes, I know some here are against jails. I'm not). An innocent person with a life term could potentially be released, but its very unlikely. It should definitely be a states issue, but I have no huge problem with either decision and I'm not ready to say for sure yet.

There are no statistics which show that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

When you think about it, it is obvious why. A murderer isn't likely to kill someone and then, since murder is against the law, walk into a police station and tell the cops what he just did. Murders, like other criminals, don't expect to be caught.

[TER]

I do not buy into your religion, so it is not "gloating".

You also demonstrate you don't have an ounce of mercy.

[TER]

We are not a theodemocracy, theonomy, or outright theocracy, so once you take your god and your religion out of the realm of personal opinions and attempt to apply your religious beliefs to US Law your religion and your god simply do not apply.

Yes, you rather a society of merciless animals.

[AxisMundi]

Yes, you rather a society of merciless animals.

Any other ad hominem fallacies you'd like to add?


You also demonstrate you don't have an ounce of mercy.

Since when is murder, whether carried out by a citizen or the state, mercy?

[Bman]

Yes, you rather a society of merciless animals.

I'd rather a society of enlightened animals. How ever one achieves enlightenment I care not.

[guitarlifter]

While I respect your position, a criminal is a criminal for breaking criminal laws in this Nation, not for breaking your god's commandments. Being "saved" simply matter not, especially for the victims.

That said, I do not agree with the death penalty for a number of reasons. Among them...

1. We have gone from a Nation of "innocent until proven guilty..." to a country of "guilty until proven to have the better lawyer".

2. Death is no punishment, it is over too quickly.

I advocate a complete restructuring of our entire penal system. Rehabilitation has proven itself to be a failed system. Inmates become institutionalized and some commit crimes soon after being released, either unchanged by said rehabilitation, or as a means to get back in on purpose.

Quite simply, prison needs to become a punishment once more.

Besides a restructuring of our prison system, we must restructure our laws as well. Examples? Eliminate pot/coke possession as a crime. Increase punishment for crimes against a person, ie murder and/or rape. ATM, a convict can get more years for grand larceny than murder under certain circumstances.

Super-max style prisons across the board is what I suggest. One person per cell, no contact with other inmates, and hour of shower and sunshine a day. No cable TV, no weights, no congenial visits, none of that.

Let a murder stew in his own juices in such a prison for the rest of his life and slowly go insane.

I never said that a person is a criminal for breaking God's commandments. My political ideology is almost 100% perfectly inline with libertarianism, and this belief of mine is actually backed by Christian theology. I don't believe that anything that doesn't have a victim should be a crime even if a lot of those actions are sinful, according to my beliefs. I was only saying that the death penalty kills the chance of their salvation (unless they get saved before execution). Like I said, I've seen murderers become truly saved after entering prison. Secondly, there are plenty of people out there who, if they were victimized, would care about their aggressor's salvation. If my whole family was raped, then murdered, I would still care about the aggressor's salvation enough to not warrant the death penalty because this person could still change, even if they had no chance of ever getting out of prison. No matter the circumstances, I would always still care enough about a person's salvation to not give them the death penalty. I'm sure plenty of others feel the same way. To me, the means justify the ends, for that is God's way.

Aside from theological arguments that many nonbelievers dismiss, I do agree with some of your points. Today's society has created a lot of misconvictions, and that alone is killing a lot of innocent people, and that alone could warrant the dismissal of the death penalty. On top of this, the cost of carrying out the death penalty is too high. However, your proposed position on punishment is too harsh. These people cannot get better in situations like that. I'm not saying to make it like Peewee's playhouse, but to your extent is not helpful or just.

[mtj458]

There are no statistics which show that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

When you think about it, it is obvious why. A murderer isn't likely to kill someone and then, since murder is against the law, walk into a police station and tell the cops what he just did. Murders, like other criminals, don't expect to be caught.

This seems to me like you haven't followed the research on the subject. http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm keeps a pretty good list of academic studies on the subject and most of the ones there find at least some deterrence, some approaching saving 20 lives per execution. There's no clear way to get a perfect answer but the consensus seems to be at least some deterring effect.

[guitarlifter]

I'm nor so sure I'd say it's that simple. Take for instance Jeffrey Dhamer. Is it really a question of "if he MIGHT have done it again?" It may be fair to say a first time murderer is exempt of being charged with a death penalty, but 2 or more would seem to be a trend.

If someone gets out of jail twice from murdering on two separate occasions, then I think that we need to reevaluate the incarceration length here. After two murders, I'd say that life in prison without parole is okay, and it would surely stop a third murder from happening, so problem solved.

[Bman]

If someone gets out of jail twice from murdering on two separate occasions, then I think that we need to reevaluate the incarceration length here. After two murders, I'd say that life in prison is okay.

To me in such a case I don't want to pay for the person to be in jail. As horrible as murder is I think at some point if someone is not deemed safe enough to be part of society for actions against others it is far more reasonable to be rid of them at the lowest remaining cost to the rest of society.

[AxisMundi]

I never said that a person is a criminal for breaking God's commandments. I don't believe that anything that doesn't have a victim should be a crime even if a lot of those actions are sinful, according to my beliefs. I was only saying that the death penalty kills the chance of their salvation (unless they get saved before execution). Like I said, I've seen murderers become truly saved after entering prison. Secondly, there are plenty of people out there who, if they were victimized, would care about their aggressor's salvation. If my whole family was raped, then murdered, I would still care about the aggressor's salvation enough to not warrant the death penalty because this person could still change, even if they had no chance of ever getting out of prison. No matter the circumstances, I would always still care enough about a person's salvation to not give them the death penalty. I'm sure plenty of others feel the same way. To me, the means justify the ends, for that is God's way.

Aside from theological arguments that many nonbelievers dismiss, I do agree with some of your points. Today's society has created a lot of misconvictions, and that alone is killing a lot of innocent people, and that alone could warrant the dismissal of the death penalty. On top of this, the cost of carrying out the death penalty is too high. However, your proposed position on punishment is too harsh. These people cannot get better in situations like that. I'm not saying to make it like Peewee's playhouse, but to your extent is not helpful or just.

Thank you for clarifying.

However, it does not change my comment.

Salvation is not part of the US criminal law system, nor should it be a consideration in that system either.

[AxisMundi]

This seems to me like you haven't followed the research on the subject. http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm keeps a pretty good list of academic studies on the subject and most of the ones there find at least some deterrence, some approaching saving 20 lives per execution. There's no clear way to get a perfect answer but the consensus seems to be at least some deterring effect.

And there are studies sowing the opposite as well, so I agree there is no clear answers.

The difficulty lies in there not being an independent source for such studies. They are either generated and/or supported by the pro side or the anti side.

So we also must take into consideration such facts as innocent men released from jail (for whatever charges) and financial considerations as well.

[mtj458]

I brought this up earlier but I'm curious if anyone has a good answer.

Some people have made the argument that we shouldn't have a death penalty because we might kill an innocent person. We also might kill an innocent person by driving our car or losing control of a camp fire. How do you make the distinction of when you can use this argument? I have trouble seeing how you could solve this other than arbitrarily deciding on a probability that makes potentially killing people okay.

[guitarlifter]

Thank you for clarifying.

However, it does not change my comment.

Salvation is not part of the US criminal law system, nor should it be a consideration in that system either.

No, it shouldn't, but I could and did still argue against the death penalty by other means by which pretty much everyone can agree. Another poster earlier made a bullet list that hit a lot of good points against the death penalty that I would fully support.

[cindy25]

when one might emotionally want the death penalty for certain crimes, its more rational to have life in prison without parole even for the worst of the worst ; even Michael Vick should not have been executed, despite what Tucker Carlson said. life would have been enough.

[guitarlifter]

I brought this up earlier but I'm curious if anyone has a good answer.

Some people have made the argument that we shouldn't have a death penalty because we might kill an innocent person. We also might kill an innocent person by driving our car or losing control of a camp fire. How do you make the distinction of when you can use this argument? I have trouble seeing how you could solve this other than arbitrarily deciding on a probability that makes potentially killing people okay.

It is because we don't go out intentionally trying to kill guilty people. I don't play superman with my SUV by trying to run over guilty people even if they deserved it because, what if I hit someone who was simply running? The difference is the intent to bring justice. Killing an innocent person is not justifying at all, which defeats the purpose of justice. Killing someone accidentally while not trying to bring justice to any particular situation is morally regrettable, but one is not morally held responsible (which is different from legally responsible). It has to do with deliberately killing someone versus just an accident. A person is not morally guilty for accidentally killing someone, but, if they try to kill someone who is innocent, then they are morally guilty for it. They should have confirmed the truth beforehand.

[guitarlifter]

when one might emotionally want the death penalty for certain crimes, its more rational to have life in prison without parole even for the worst of the worst ; even Michael Vick should not have been executed, despite what Tucker Carlson said. life would have been enough.

A single penny taken out of Michael Vick's pocket by government hands would've been too much. The only party who had a right to punish Michael Vick was the NFL, who he had agreed by contract to uphold moral behavior. The government is not the moral police. Animals have no rights. Good night.

[Mike4Freedom]

If every citizen in the US carried a firearm with them a lot less murders and rapes would happen. You and only you are responsible for your own safety. If you are in the vicinity of someone who is being murdered or raped go and defend them with your weapon.

This is the solution to this problem and is why carrying a firearm is one of the pillars are liberty. It is the main pillar if you ask me.

Why does not everyone do what I mentioned above? It is due to government slowly taking away our rights to do what is stated above. Government is to blame for this problem. In typical government fashion the death penalty only treats the symptom not the cause.

It is your duty as an US citizen to protect yourself. Only you can stop yourself from being murdered or raped.

[mtj458]

It is because we don't go out intentionally trying to kill guilty people. I don't play superman with my SUV by trying to run over guilty people even if they deserved it because, what if I hit someone who was simply running? The difference is the intent to bring justice. Killing an innocent person is not justifying at all, which defeats the purpose of justice. Killing someone accidentally while not trying to bring justice to any particular situation is morally regrettable, but one is not morally held responsible (which is different from legally responsible). It has to do with deliberately killing someone versus just an accident. A person is not morally guilty for accidentally killing someone, but, if they try to kill someone who is innocent, then they are morally guilty for it. They should have confirmed the truth beforehand.

Sorry, I'm a little confused by your wording. Are you saying if you have 100% confirmed the truth beforehand then it is okay to execute the guilty? If I get you right, your saying you aren't morally responsible for accidentally killing someone, but you are for purposefully killing someone. If that right then your last sentence confuses me.

[Working Poor]

But wouldn't killing each other make us more like animals?

Only if we are going to eat them. I am pretty sure most animals only kill to eat or to defend their young or territory. Animals have better ethics than humans IMO.

[JohnEngland]

Capital punishment is murder.

[Sola_Fide]

I believe in the Biblical principle of restitution.

The Noahic covenant put it very simply: "If you shed the blood of man, by man shall your blood be shed."

But I very much agree with Ron Paul's reversal on the death penalty. Our government is corrupt, racist and evil. Although I agree in principle with the death penalty, I absolutely agree with Ron on a moratorium until our government isnt so blatantly evil.

[erowe1]

I voted yes. But that's with the qualification that it can't be done by any state (i.e. any institution that governs people by conquest rather than consent). It has to be done at the local level in a community of people who have agreed to the rules that they govern themselves with.

[pcosmar]

No. Not at this time. The present "justice system" is utterly corrupt, and beyond redemption.
Were it scrapped and an honest, equitable and transparent system in it's place I might reconsider.

[Melissa]

I am against it and for those of you using stats... if the death penalty was a deterrent then it would seem that the states with it would have lower murder rates because people would not want to have that punishment so they would not do the crime...but guess what.. states without the death penalty have lower murder rates so don’t think the argument can be made that the death penalty is a deterrent at all

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

[LibForestPaul]

No. One is only allowed to take the life of a sovereign individual under threat to ones one personal property (i.e. ones life). A prisoner does not pose this threat while in custody and properly secured.
This means if the prisoner, while in custody, poses a threat to any other individual, his life may be take if required.
This also mean, a prisoner, falsely convicted, will not have his property (life) forcible taken from him by mistake.

[Slutter McGee]

Robert James Anderson kidnapped and murdered five-year-old Audra Ann Reeves, in Amarillo, Texas on June 9, 1992. Anderson told police that he kidnapped Reeves as she was returning home from playing in a park. He brought her inside his house and unsuccessfully tried to rape her. He then beat, stabbed, and drowned Reeves, then stored her body in a styrofoam ice chest. Her body was found that day by a neighbor throwing out trash. Anderson was identified as the person who discarded the chest, was apprehended by police, and confessed almost immediately.

Anderson said he committed the crime after a dispute with his wife of eight months. The Associated Press quoted Anderson as saying, "The whole day revolved around the fight. She stormed out of the house and said when she returned she didn't want to find me."

Anderson was sentenced to death and was executed by lethal injection in Texas on July 20, 2006.

I may be using the appeal to emotion fallacy, but I don't care. Some people deserve to die.

Slutter McGee

[pcosmar]

I may be using the appeal to emotion fallacy, but I don't care. Some people deserve to die.

Slutter McGee

Perhaps so. But how does a corrupt system decide that?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/#
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

[erowe1]

I may be using the appeal to emotion fallacy, but I don't care. Some people deserve to die.

Slutter McGee

Those emotions are there for a reason. You were made in God's image and have an innate sense of his moral law. You're right, some people deserve to die.

That said, there's not just the abstract question about whether or not there ought to be some kind of death penalty, but also the practical question of how to enact it. And I think there's something to be said for the notion that it would be better to forgo our duty to put to death those who deserve it than to delegate that responsibility to the state.

[agitator]

Like so many other issues, the death penalty works in theory, but not in practice.

- the power to kill is too much power, and it corrupts.
- when corrupted, it can be used politically.
- innocent people are often executed, and that can't be reversed.
- like a lot of our justice system, it is not administered fairly or evenly, certain groups are targeted.
- due to the legal system, it is often more expensive to execute than to leave in prison.
- the Justice system should be rational and impartial, not a system of vengence.

There are some people that need to be permanently removed from society. Life in prison is the best option we have.
-

This. Should not give the State that much power.

[mtj458]

I am against it and for those of you using stats... if the death penalty was a deterrent then it would seem that the states with it would have lower murder rates because people would not want to have that punishment so they would not do the crime...but guess what.. states without the death penalty have lower murder rates so don’t think the argument can be made that the death penalty is a deterrent at all

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Come on, you have to be able to see the flaw in that argument. Do you not go to the hospital because the death rate is higher there? It could easily be that higher death rates influence the states to use the death penalty or they could both be caused by a third factor.

[Elwar]

This is about the only issue that I refer to my religious belief on. Jesus taught us to forgive. Killing someone isn't exactly forgiveness.

They should be forgiven, but they need to be kept from society for the rest of their lives. Just as a matter of keeping society free of people who are willing to violate the NAP to that degree.

I also believe that drivers should be jailed for murder if they kill someone, though not necessarily for life.

[Brian4Liberty]

you can say the same for incarceration. the unsavory after effect is a person is generally less able to fit into society after he is locked up then before. prison is a society in of itself. you are just removing people from your society and putting them in someone elses society.

Yes, prison needs reform. Those who would otherwise be executed should never be mixed in with those who will be released. And if the system is so incompetent, we probably can't trust it with meting out death.

[Brian4Liberty]

To me in such a case I don't want to pay for the person to be in jail. As horrible as murder is I think at some point if someone is not deemed safe enough to be part of society for actions against others it is far more reasonable to be rid of them at the lowest remaining cost to the rest of society.

In reality, the lowest remaining cost is often life in prison.

[Heimdallr]

The death penalty really isn't that great. Not much of a deterrent, and I don't support the state killing anyone. It's also pretty reckless. You NEVER know what kind of evidence is going to turn up, and ONE innocent dead is too much.

[erowe1]

Come on, you have to be able to see the flaw in that argument. Do you not go to the hospital because the death rate is higher there? It could easily be that higher death rates influence the states to use the death penalty or they could both be caused by a third factor.

There's also the fact that most of the states that do have the death penalty only execute a relatively small percentage of their convicted murderers. My gut tells me that a consistently applied death penalty would be a significant deterrent. We just don't have much data out there to test that hypothesis.

[Melissa]

I am a criminal Justice major and no dont see the flaw. Most murders are done in the heat of the moment so to say that the death penalty is a deterrant there has to be a criminal that thinks hey if I commit this crime then I might die so the states without the death penalty would naturally have less murders but since that is not the case it can not be said that the death penatly is a deterrent at all. Death penalty is pretty much revenge "the eye for an eye" thinking but for someone to say that it deters crime there is NO evidence to even come close to suggesting that. And have no clue what you are talking about with the Hospital analogy.

[Brian4Liberty]

I may be using the appeal to emotion fallacy, but I don't care. Some people deserve to die.

Slutter McGee

Individuals can be emotional. Society (as represented by the Justice System) should be rational, impartial, and "blind" (as the saying goes). For us to justify vengeance as a State role is a slippery slope that we have already slid down. This is the irrational rational used by many of those in the general public who support our current wars. "They killed our innocent women and children, now we will kill their innocents. An eye for an eye." We can not have the State involved in revenge. We can not have politicians utilizing the emotional revenge motivation to support their wars. We should not be fooled by the daughter of a diplomat who says that "they are throwing babies out of incubators and onto the floor to die". Led by emotional responses, society can be convinced to do almost anything.

Back to the Justice System, and recent threads here on the forum, we have the same issue when it comes to MADD. We have a Justice System that is manipulated by the victims (or those who are so empathetic that they too become emotional victims by proxy). Justice should be rational, and punishment should not be decided on by victims. Justice needs to be rational and unbiased. Once again, we have slid down that slippery slope. We have given up the Fourth Amendment in order to satisfy victims. (We can leave neo-prohibition as a separate issue, although it is often a co-factor).

As much as pure, raw revenge is a common human emotion, it should not be part of the Justice System.

[Brian4Liberty]

For us to justify vengeance as a State role is a slippery slope that we have already slid down. This is the irrational rational used by many of those in the general public who support our current wars. "They killed our innocent women and children, now we will kill their innocents. An eye for an eye." We can not have the State involved in revenge. We can not have politicians utilizing the emotional revenge motivation to support their wars.

In addition, the State as executioner has slid downhill into another dramatic loss of Liberty, Justice and Due Process. President Obama claims the right to kill anyone at anytime, based on his "evaluation" of the danger they pose. How did we come to that point? It flows directly from the death penalty. It is "justified" by those who say "if we could capture them, we would convict them and execute them anyway, so it's really no big deal to just kill them at any time, any where. Not only that, collateral damage is excusable because it's in the pursuit of "Justice"; albeit a perverted and twisted Justice.

[Slutter McGee]

Those emotions are there for a reason. You were made in God's image and have an innate sense of his moral law. You're right, some people deserve to die.

That said, there's not just the abstract question about whether or not there ought to be some kind of death penalty, but also the practical question of how to enact it. And I think there's something to be said for the notion that it would be better to forgo our duty to put to death those who deserve it than to delegate that responsibility to the state.

That crime was commited in 92 I think. My father was the prosecutor the secured the death penalty for the man. In this case, there was no doubt of guilt. A plethora of evidence. I remember I was 8 and accidently saw a picture of the girls body. Decided right there I was for the death penalty.

The idea of the Federal Government having the right to execute scares the hell out of me. State Governments....not so much. Such issues are handled at the local level, by local, judges and attorneys, with a jury from the community.

The death penalty is something that I generally don't argue with because I recognize that there are good arguments against it, and I just dont give a shit.

See a thread like this, I just want to make my point, because my arguments for it are not based on logic. Although I do know the logical arguments in support of it.

Have fun debating it.

Slutter McGee

[pcosmar]

That crime was commited in 92 I think. My father was the prosecutor the secured the death penalty for the man. In this case, there was no doubt of guilt. A plethora of evidence. I remember I was 8 and accidently saw a picture of the girls body. Decided right there I was for the death penalty.

The idea of the Federal Government having the right to execute scares the hell out of me. State Governments....not so much. Such issues are handled at the local level, by local, judges and attorneys, with a jury from the community.

The death penalty is something that I generally don't argue with because I recognize that there are good arguments against it, and I just dont give a shit.

See a thread like this, I just want to make my point, because my arguments for it are not based on logic. Although I do know the logical arguments in support of it.

Have fun debating it.

Slutter McGee

Then you have an emotional argument.

I remember I was 8 and accidently saw a picture of the girls body. Decided right there I was for the death penalty.
Based on the questionable reaction of an 8 yr old.

Therefor you support killing innocent people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-scheck/innocent-but-executed_b_272327.html

An extraordinary new investigative report in the New Yorker shows that Willingham was telling the truth. He was innocent. David Grann's report, in the September 7 issue, exhaustively deconstructs every aspect of the case and shows that none of the evidence used to convict Willingham was valid. Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1974, Grann's report constitutes the strongest case on record in this country that an innocent man was executed.

And there have been others. There are many in prison for crimes that they were not guilty of.
The links I posted earlier in the thread are factual proof of that.

How many innocent executions are acceptable?

more
http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

[TheTyke]

I support it. I don't see vengeance or "punishment" as the purpose, but rather a way to make sure that it never can happen again. I have a friend who worked in a maximum security prison, and he said he observed no regret or reform. If/when the folks get out, they'll do it again. They also pose a threat to fellow inmates and the guards.

I do have sympathy for the arguments that our system is corrupt, needs reform, and the state could use this to empower itself. But there definitely is a place for the death penalty for the reason above.

[Brian4Liberty]

If/when the folks get out, they'll do it again.


Why is letting them out an alternative to the death penalty?

[pcosmar]

I support it. I don't see vengeance or "punishment" as the purpose, but rather a way to make sure that it never can happen again. I have a friend who worked in a maximum security prison, and he said he observed no regret or reform. If/when the folks get out, they'll do it again. They also pose a threat to fellow inmates and the guards.

I do have sympathy for the arguments that our system is corrupt, needs reform, and the state could use this to empower itself. But there definitely is a place for the death penalty for the reason above.

You have a friend who,,,,
I lived in a Maximum Security Prison for several years. Then in a Medium, and then in a minimum.
I have lived and worked outside and own my own home today.

I did see a lot of "worst cases" released and return, while others that were better candidates for release were overlooked.
I suspect this was done on purpose to skew the statistics. but can't prove that.

[Slutter McGee]

Then you have an emotional argument.

Based on the questionable reaction of an 8 yr old.

Therefor you support killing innocent people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-scheck/innocent-but-executed_b_272327.html


And there have been others. There are many in prison for crimes that they were not guilty of.
The links I posted earlier in the thread are factual proof of that.

How many innocent executions are acceptable?

more
http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

Could you possibly be more of a DICK? I already said it was emotional argument dumbass. And seeing a body of a dead 5 yearold and wanting the guy who did it to die is not a questionable reaction.

Obviously at 8 my mind was not set in favor of the death penalty. I hope you can forgive a slight hyperbole when I said "I decided right there"

I already said I recognize there are good arguments against it. But instead of accepting what I said you felt the need to try to prove some bullshit intellectual superiority by trying to make an argument that I know plenty well.

Then you imply that I support the execution of innocent people. Go blow yourself.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[pcosmar]

Could you possibly be more of a DICK?
Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Possibly.
Push me and find out.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2183/2100802221_93f1ce074c_z.jpg

;)


And seeing a body of a dead 5 year old and wanting the guy who did it somebody accused to die is not a questionable reaction.
Fixed it.

[TheTyke]

Why is letting them out an alternative to the death penalty?

If we don't trust the competency of government and jury to justly convict people, how we are going to trust its competency to keep them secure in prison for their entire lives? :O

[Slutter McGee]

Fixed it.

Come now Richard. You didn't fix shit. The only reason there was a trial is because it is required in all capital murder cases in which the death penalty is an option (In Texas). Not only did they have a written confession but he was caught carrying the little girls body. Her blood was found all over her house.

He tried to rape her, but he couldnt so he used a broken glass coke bottle. But you keep it up with your hollier than thou, I respect the rights of the accused, bullshit.

When a cop beats the shit out of someone, you are the last person to respect an individuals right not be judged until he is found guilty. But wait, thats an evil cop, so its ok. Because they are part of the evil government.

You hold yourself to a double standard Richard.

Slutter McGee

[Brian4Liberty]

If we don't trust the competency of government and jury to justly convict people, how we are going to trust its competency to keep them secure in prison for their entire lives? :O

Good question. There are a lot of people incarcerated. Some are released too early, some too late, some shouldn't have been at all. How many people who were up for the death penalty were released instead?

Of course if you don't trust the system to keep the truly deserving incarcerated, you have another problem: if the Police are skeptical as well (either due to reality or simply perception), they may decide to be Judge, Jury and executioner on the streets...

[AxisMundi]

I brought this up earlier but I'm curious if anyone has a good answer.

Some people have made the argument that we shouldn't have a death penalty because we might kill an innocent person. We also might kill an innocent person by driving our car or losing control of a camp fire. How do you make the distinction of when you can use this argument? I have trouble seeing how you could solve this other than arbitrarily deciding on a probability that makes potentially killing people okay.

The difference is State mandated killing as opposed to an individual accidentally killing someone.

HUGE distinction.

[AxisMundi]

No, it shouldn't, but I could and did still argue against the death penalty by other means by which pretty much everyone can agree. Another poster earlier made a bullet list that hit a lot of good points against the death penalty that I would fully support.

So you are using salvation as a personal opinion to argue against the DP?

That I can dig.

[Southron]

I'm not in favor of a federal death penalty, but am in favor of a quicker process at the state level.

When it comes down to it, you have to put some faith in the justice system or legalize murder.

[AxisMundi]

I'm not in favor of a federal death penalty, but am in favor of a quicker process at the state level.

When it comes down to it, you have to put some faith in the justice system or legalize murder.

I disagree.

Very few states, if any, can manage their own budget. I do not accept that they could manage a death penalty system.

The death penalty requires much more to attain, and guilty men can walk because of the slightest loophole or even smallest doubt among the jury.

Lifetime incarceration in the super-max style prisons I mentioned earlier would be a much more fitting punishment IMHO, in making the punishment last as long as possible.

It would also be easier to obtain a conviction, cheaper, and much, much easier to reverse than a death penalty already enacted.

[Icymudpuppy]

I don't support the death penalty to be carried out by bureaucrats at any level.

If a person is convicted of guilt in a capital crime such as premeditated murder, or serial murder, in which they are definitely guilty, and there is no possibility of innocence, I believe that all of that guilty person's possessions and resources be held in trust for the victim's next of kin to decide if it should be paid out for a good old fashioned lynching construction of gallows, etc, or to use those resources for their own benefit.

If there is any possible doubt, then appeals should be carried to their extreme limit and if all appeals result in conviction, the choice can once again go to the victim.

Such lynchings should only be carried out if the victim's next of kin is willing to watch, and a local posse/lynch mob can be rounded up for a public execution.

It needs to be personal, and direct.

If the victim's family can't participate in the lynching, and not enough local people can be found to carry it out, then it should not go through. Goes back to you can't delegate to the government a task that you can't do yourself.

[TheTyke]

Good question. There are a lot of people incarcerated. Some are released too early, some too late, some shouldn't have been at all. How many people who were up for the death penalty were released instead?

Of course if you don't trust the system to keep the truly deserving incarcerated, you have another problem: if the Police are skeptical as well (either due to reality or simply perception), they may decide to be Judge, Jury and executioner on the streets...

Indeed... However flawed our legal process (and human nature itself) is, requiring a unanimous jury decision is the best protection we can come up with, and it's much better than the alternative.

[pcosmar]

Come now Richard. You didn't fix shit. The only reason there was a trial is because it is required in all capital murder cases in which the death penalty is an option (In Texas). Not only did they have a written confession but he was caught carrying the little girls body. Her blood was found all over her house.

He tried to rape her, but he couldnt so he used a broken glass coke bottle. But you keep it up with your hollier than thou, I respect the rights of the accused, bullshit.

When a cop beats the shit out of someone, you are the last person to respect an individuals right not be judged until he is found guilty. But wait, thats an evil cop, so its ok. Because they are part of the evil government.

You hold yourself to a double standard Richard.

Slutter McGee

The name is not Richard. Stutter. And you know that the evidence was not manufactured or the confession coerced because you saw some picture as an 8 yr old. :rolleyes:

My point is that the System, Police, Prosecutors and Lawyers is Corrupt to the core.
This has been proven often, Had you read the links i provided you could see a small sampling of that.

I oppose having a provably corrupt system with the ability to kill innocent people because of shoddy police work or prosecutor misconduct.

But then,I'm arguing with an 8 yr old.
:(

[AxisMundi]

Indeed... However flawed our legal process (and human nature itself) is, requiring a unanimous jury decision is the best protection we can come up with, and it's much better than the alternative.

Agreed.

However, do you, personally, trust the system enough to let it decide the mortal fate of a convict?

I trust the system only enough to incarcerate, not kill.

[mtj458]

I am a criminal Justice major and no dont see the flaw. Most murders are done in the heat of the moment so to say that the death penalty is a deterrant there has to be a criminal that thinks hey if I commit this crime then I might die so the states without the death penalty would naturally have less murders but since that is not the case it can not be said that the death penatly is a deterrent at all. Death penalty is pretty much revenge "the eye for an eye" thinking but for someone to say that it deters crime there is NO evidence to even come close to suggesting that. And have no clue what you are talking about with the Hospital analogy.

The flaw is that you assumed that correlation is causation. Just because states with death penalties have death rates doesn't prove that death penalties don't deter crime. (Just as a hospital having a higher death rate than the outside world doesn't prove that hospitals don't deter deaths). And again, you said most murders are done in the heat of the moment, not all murders. Nobody would argue that death penalties stop crime, just that it prevents a small amount of the marginal crime.

http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm If you read that link, you'll find your claim that "that it deters crime there is NO evidence to even come close to suggesting that" is just completely false. There are actually dozens of studies that suggest that. If you're not willing to concede those arguments than I don't what to say other than you're either unwilling to change your mind no matter what or you just don't understand statistics.


The difference is State mandated killing as opposed to an individual accidentally killing someone.

HUGE distinction.

That is an argument against the main argument that the state killing someone is moral. I am asking about the specific sub argument that we capital punishment should be illegal because the state may accidentally kill an innocent person (and only that specific argument).

[Anti Federalist]

You're not serious, are you SV?

According to you, government can't manage a tariff correctly, but you're prepared to trust them running fight to the death gladiator games and executions?

When hundreds of people have been found innocent that were previously on death row???

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Please tell me you're just kidding here.


I'd prefer to use those on death row as entertainment a la gladiator style or 'Running Man', otherwise, yes on executions for serial killers and murderers who are proud of their crimes, or would clearly do it again. Some people you just need to put down as rabid animals.

[Anti Federalist]

Agreed.

However, do you, personally, trust the system enough to let it decide the mortal fate of a convict?

I trust the system only enough to incarcerate, not kill.

I'll + rep for that, and maybe help you out of the hole.

You're absolutely right on this one.

Except to say I have my doubts about incarceration as well.

[Anti Federalist]

Then you imply that I support the execution of innocent people. Go blow yourself.


If you are in favor of capital punishment, then you are, de facto, supporting the execution of innocent people.

There are hundreds of documented cases of people that were proved innocent, after the fact of their execution.

[ARealConservative]

If you are in favor of capital punishment, then you are, de facto, supporting the execution of innocent people.

There are hundreds of documented cases of people that were proved innocent, after the fact of their execution.

there are thousands of documented cases of killers killing again - in prison.

no perfect system will ever exist.

the bottom line is individuals have right to take a life in self defense.

the sad truth is some people process the facts wrong and take a life when it isn't in self defense. they make a mistake. happens to humans form time to time.

you are actually trying to appeal to emotion by bringing up that innocent people are sometimes killed. we know this.

should we remove a person's right to self defense because sometimes people get it wrong? I don't think anyone would argue that angle.

as someone that believes in a state, I allow the collective transfer of power from individuals to states. so if individuals can derive the right to kill in self defense, they can also transfer that right to the state.

Arguing life in prison is adequate because you are removing someone from society is a cop out as I already explained.

unless you are killing them, you aren't removing them from society, just your insulated version of society. you are still putting other people in harms way by sticking a known dangerous element into their society. Prison is a society by every definition of the word.

[Freedom 4 all]

I am willing to accept the idea that some people deserve to die, but I can't think of anyone who I would trust to be the arbiter of this, least of all a corrupt and morally bankrupt system that routinely imprisons and executes people later found innocent of wrongdoing.

[Slutter McGee]

If you are in favor of capital punishment, then you are, de facto, supporting the execution of innocent people.

There are hundreds of documented cases of people that were proved innocent, after the fact of their execution.

This argument fails logical examination. It is an argument from final consequences. I support capital punishment. Capital Punishment has resulted innocents being executed. Therefore I support innocents being executed. This argument is fallacy...much like my argument was an appeal to emotion and also a fallacy.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Anti Federalist]

The US has more people in prison, both in real numbers and per capita, than any other nation on earth.

The history of corrupt cops, prosecutors, judges, poorly informed juries, evidence tampering and abuse, forfeitures and all the rest paint a dismal picture of the US "just-us" system.

I am not at all prepared to put another person's life at stake in this system.






there are thousands of documented cases of killers killing again - in prison.

no perfect system will ever exist.

the bottom line is individuals have right to take a life in self defense.

the sad truth is some people process the facts wrong and take a life when it isn't in self defense. they make a mistake. happens to humans form time to time.

you are actually trying to appeal to emotion by bringing up that innocent people are sometimes killed. we know this.

should we remove a person's right to self defense because sometimes people get it wrong? I don't think anyone would argue that angle.

as someone that believes in a state, I allow the collective transfer of power from individuals to states. so if individuals can derive the right to kill in self defense, they can also transfer that right to the state.

Arguing life in prison is adequate because you are removing someone from society is a cop out as I already explained.

unless you are killing them, you aren't removing them from society, just your insulated version of society. you are still putting other people in harms way by sticking a known dangerous element into their society. Prison is a society by every definition of the word.

[pcosmar]

there are thousands of documented cases of killers killing again - in prison.



There are many cases of people with non violent crimes becoming "murders" in prison because they were locked in a cell with a psychopath
And survived the experience. I know of a half dozen such cases when I was in..

There are a lot of folks posting here that have absolutely NO real world experience,but are convinced that the "justice system' is not wholly flawed and corrupt.

[Slutter McGee]

There are many cases of people with non violent crimes becoming "murders" in prison because they were locked in a cell with a psychopath
And survived the experience. I know of a half dozen such cases when I was in..

There are a lot of folks posting here that have absolutely NO real world experience,but are convinced that the "justice system' is not wholly flawed and corrupt.

Nobody is arguing that there isn't corruption. Or that people should be thrown in prison for non violent "crimes".

What we are arguing is that in some cases guilt is beyond doubt. The crime is so horrific it is hard to imagine. And in these cases the state serves a legitimate function when it executes these bastards.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

The US has more people in prison, both in real numbers and per capita, than any other nation on earth.

The history of corrupt cops, prosecutors, judges, poorly informed juries, evidence tampering and abuse, forfeitures and all the rest paint a dismal picture of the US "just-us" system.

I am not at all prepared to put another person's life at stake in this system.

The first question is not concerning the system. It is a philophical argument. Is death an acceptable form of punishment. That is the question. I believe it is just. Once you answer this you can address the next question. Is the system an acceptable way to carry out this punishment.

Slutter McGee

[AxisMundi]

Nobody is arguing that there isn't corruption. Or that people should be thrown in prison for non violent "crimes".

What we are arguing is that in some cases guilt is beyond doubt. The crime is so horrific it is hard to imagine. And in these cases the state serves a legitimate function when it executes these bastards.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

An appeal to emotions, I'm afraid.

Innocent or guilty, we cannot have several forms of jurisprudence, laws, and sentencing guidelines.

As innocent people have been convicted, and the gods only know how many innocents have been killed by the death penalty, the system is quite simply proven to be flawed.

Therefor, life time incarceration to remove the convicted from the general population while still permitting said sentence to be commuted if later evidence arises which shows a reasonable doubt is called for.

[Anti Federalist]

The first question is not concerning the system. It is a philophical argument. Is death an acceptable form of punishment. That is the question. I believe it is just. Once you answer this you can address the next question. Is the system an acceptable way to carry out this punishment.

Slutter McGee

Execution is just punishment for certain crimes.

The system, as it stands now, is a completely unacceptable apparatus to mete out that sentence.

[youngbuck]

I used to think yes, but upon discovering how inept and corrupt our judicial system is, I believe that there's too much risk that an innocent person will be put to death.

[Anti Federalist]

The American Police State

by William L. Anderson

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson222.html

The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton, New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008, 264 pages (paperback), $16.95.

In the past six years, I have written a number of articles, papers, and columns about how any pretense of the rule of law in the United States is dead. This was not always the position I took, but after reading the hardback version of The Tyranny of Good Intentions in 2001, I realized that not only were the people who were officially entrusted with keeping the law in this country not interested in fulfilling their duties, but that the very nature of law itself in the USA has fundamentally changed. That change, unfortunately, has been for the worse. I wish I had more comforting words.

Paul Craig Roberts, an economist and a former assistant secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan administration, and Lawrence M. Stratton, an attorney and currently a Ph.D. candidate in Christian Ethics at Princeton Seminary, have exposed the modern U.S. legal system for the wretched lie that it has become. From the fraud of the "War on Terror" to the destruction of ancient legal doctrines, Roberts and Stratton document the death of law in the United States.

Before I go through the litany of cases and situations that Roberts and Stratton present, I first must point out that the main service they do is not the presentation of many injustices that are a regular part of U.S. law today — though what they say is important, if not downright discouraging. (I would warn all readers that they need to prepare to be angry and shocked at the many evils done today in the name of the law. If a reader has problems with high blood pressure, I would urge that person to stop right here.)

No, the most important thing that Roberts and Stratton do is to educate the reader about the source of U.S. law, how it began, and why it has become so corrupted. In this review, I will deal first with their vision of the law and the downfall of that vision, before mentioning a few cases.

While we might look back to the signing of the Magna Charta in 1215 as the beginnings of what are called the Rights of Englishmen, perhaps the most influential document in the history of our law was (I emphasize "was") William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, published between 1765 and 1769. As Roberts and Stratton point out, Blackstone believed that the law should be a "shield for the innocent" and that the purpose of law (and government) was protection of innocent people (and their property) from predators — and from the predatory state.

From Blackstone's vision came the view of "innocent until proven guilty," and the protection of rights for those who were accused. From Blackstone, we are given the famous quote: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." Indeed, the concept Rights of Englishmen has been absolutely vital to the very idea of liberty in this country.

However, there also was a competing vision, one that was drawn up by the "father" of modern government, Jeremy Bentham, a British philosopher of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the one who penned the term, "utilitarianism." Bentham scoffed at the idea of individual rights, and believed that the state needed to be a mechanism by which the largest number of people could be able to experience the greatest pleasure with the least amount of pain.

In Bentham's view, the state was to accomplish that purpose by being as unrestrained as possible, led by people whose vision was superior to the vision of ordinary people who did not know better. Law, in Bentham's view, was not to be a "shield" for innocent people, but rather a set of rules that would push people in a certain direction through incentives, both benign and harsh. Even wrongful convictions of innocent people were not harmful, for they empowered the state and sent a message to everyone else.

For example, readers of this page and (one would hope) most Americans recoil at the thought of government using torture to extract confessions. While Blackstone railed against the use of the "rack" and other such torture devices, Bentham saw torture as useful for the state, to be administered by the Wise State as a mechanism to teach the subjects of a country to obey their political masters.

Another example came with the use of prisons. Bentham believed that people should be arrested and imprisoned before they committed crimes. The state would be wise enough to determine who was a threat and who was not, and those people deemed to be a threat to "society" were to be locked up and forced to engage in labor. Moreover, prisons were not to be dedicated to incarcerating dangerous and violent people; they were to be used as tool to strengthen the power of the state.

Where Blackstone believed that government should be restrained by natural law, and be a "shield" for the innocent, Bentham saw the state's role to be a sword against people who might threaten the well-being of those in political power. In his view, there was no such thing as "natural law;" indeed, law was nothing but a set of rules put into place by those who had power.

It does not take a particularly astute person to see which vision has triumphed in the United States. Roberts and Stratton, after laying out the competing visions of law, demonstrate unequivocally just where U.S. law is headed, and the many injustices that the Benthamite vision has visited upon innocent people.

From the Drug War (and the policies of asset forfeiture — read that, seizure by government authorities of property under flimsy pretenses of guilt) to the creation of ex post facto laws to bills of attainder, they document conclusively just how prosecutors, corrupt judges, and the police have destroyed any last vestiges of natural law and constitutional rule.

For example, they deal with the ancient doctrine of mens rea, which meant that in order for a person to be charged with a crime, authorities had to show that he or she intended to commit a crime. Blackstone wrote that a "vicious will" was necessary for such charges to be made justly. Bentham thought otherwise.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court and lawmakers have obliterated mens rea, in the process wiping out a very real protection that individuals had against the predatory state. In their chapter, "Crimes Without Intent," Roberts and Stratton outline a number of criminal cases brought in which it was clear that the defendants did not intend to break the law — or even knew they were doing so.

One very sad case involves that of Benjamin Lacy of Linden, Virginia, a 73-year-old producer of apple juice who was targeted by the Clinton administration and the Environmental Protection Agency in 1994. Lacy, who had written down a few wrong numbers on waste water forms (he received his information over the telephone) was tried and convicted in federal court for "conspiracy to mislead" the government.

Prosecutors theorized that Lacy was trying to cover up polluting a nearby stream. However, they never offered proof that the stream was ever polluted, and they were successful in convincing a judge not to permit Lacy to use evidence that no pollution had taken place as a defense. A sycophantic jury (What other kind of jury exists these days?) believed the prosecutors, and Lacy went to prison, his life ruined.

In case someone thinks Roberts and Stratton exaggerate, perhaps a line from the majority 1957 opinion in Lambert v. California, written by Justice William O. Douglas (mistakenly called a "libertarian" by many) will be enlightening: "We do not go with Blackstone in saying that ‘a vicious will' is necessary to constitute a crime." In fact, while legal historians and others might claim that the Earl Warren Court of the 1950s and 60s expanded the rights of the accused, Roberts and Stratton demonstrate that this court accelerated a trend in which the state — and especially the bureaucracy — gained huge amounts of power against individuals.

When agents of the state are given unlimited power by legislators and judges (the Constitution be damned or turned into a mechanism by which to expand the powers of the state), then one should not be surprised when those agents lie or suborn false testimony. Throughout this book, Roberts and Stratton document — and I mean document — how the authorities themselves have become the lawless, and the examples are endless.

I must point out — if only because the critics of this review will accuse me of being overly favorable to the authors — that they mention my name in their section on the false prosecution of innocent Duke University students by the infamous Michael B. Nifong. As readers of my articles already know, Nifong indicted three Duke student-athletes for rape, kidnapping, and sexual assault despite knowing that they were innocent, but needing to bring charges in order to gain enough black votes in Durham County, North Carolina, to win an election. (The accuser was black, and the defendants were white. That was enough for the authorities and voters of Durham — and much of the Duke faculty and administration — to conclude that the charges simply had to be true, even if no evidence of a crime existed.)

While I appreciate the authors' pointing out my very small role in exposing Nifong's predations, I also can say that I would have written this review even had they not mentioned my name. In fact, I will say here that no book — no book — has influenced me more than their 2000 hardback version of Tyranny, and this book is an improvement over the original. If a reader wishes to understand the points from which I come as I deal with the legal abominations of the authorities of this country, this book is the best place to start.

I will go farther and say that I really did not understand the law until I read the first version of Tyranny, and that the book gave me the equivalent of a legal education. Had it not been for Roberts and Stratton, I never would have become involved in the Duke case at all, not because I would have believed Nifong, but rather because I would not have understood the real issues behind the case.

This book is not a politically-motivated polemic, as both conservatives and liberals are exposed. The modern Drug War is the creation of the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and is championed by most conservatives (and especially the Christian Right). The legacy of this "war" has been the explosion of the U.S. prison population from about 300,000 when Reagan took office in 1981, to more than two million today.

Yet, liberals also come under scrutiny. Roberts and Stratton document the massacre of innocents at the home of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, which liberals championed aggressively. (I watched the 1995 U.S. Senate hearings on the affair, and Senate Democrats did everything they could to discredit the critics of Janet Reno's Department of "Justice" which ordered the attacks.) The evisceration of mens rea accelerated during the Clinton administration and is a staple today of modern political liberalism, which seeks to criminalize normal business practices and more.

As I warned earlier, a careful reading of this book is guaranteed to raise one's awareness — and blood pressure. I can feel mine rising as I write these words, so I will stop at this point, for the sake of my own health.

I cannot overemphasize just how important this book really is for those who care about liberty and the rule of law. This is not something which looks at modern law and makes a few recommendations, as though a few "reforms" would make a difference. No, Roberts and Stratton have attacked the modern tyrannical state root and branch and have demonstrated conclusively not only that the Bentham vision has "won" the legal battle in this country, but just how utterly destructive that "vision" really has become.

Perhaps all we can do right now is to learn, and for those who wish to better understand the foundations of liberty, this is a good place to start. A very good place.

[Brian4Liberty]

Another good example of willful Constitution trampling:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz3Q6E0S874

[Bman]

In reality, the lowest remaining cost is often life in prison.

That's a whole problem within itself.

[Vessol]

Giving anyone the legal and or moral right to kill someone besides in direct self defense? No thanks.

[Anti Federalist]

Giving anyone the legal and or moral right to kill someone besides in direct self defense? No thanks.

That too, excellent point.

Happy new year, btw.

[Vessol]

Happy new year, fellow mundane.

[rvkpa]

In a system of perfect justice a death penalty may make sense. However, we do not have a system of perfect justice. Our legal system enforces written laws and is not pure justice. I think giving the government the power to write laws that go something like: if we believe you commited action x we kill you is more power than I'd like the government to have. Sound judgment let alone "perfect justice" is in short supply in the halls of government.

[Golding]

Anyone that actually voted yes should read more stories like this (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5huBWFb2dNNZuWyHa-lsCEqXI0dng?docId=CNG.e92ade6d2e06e7742a47a0ce36e1 a14e.5f1).

I recently had three of my flights taken hostage unless I went through a porn scanner, and got groped because I refused. I felt like that was a major injustice that this government did to me. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if they took my life hostage over a made-up crime. Worse yet, I couldn't imagine what it's like knowing the state will murder you for that crime they made up against you. This guy was only one step away from that.

If a case like that happens in Texas, there's no question that they have had their share of murdering innocents as well. I personally don't believe that in a utopian world, where the courts get things right every time, that the death penalty is justified. But in a world like we live in, where the government commits injustice at every level, it's appalling to see anyone suggest they have the "Okay" to kill.

[Daamien]

No. I don't want the state to have the power to kill its citizens. Also, I believe it to be a violation of due process given how early termination prevents the possibility of additional appeals, clemency, commutation, and of course overturning a sentence based on evidence acquired after sentencing (such as DNA or confession from another individual).

[Kludge]

This is an odd question for me. I think victims (or their family/lovers if murder) should be allowed to choose the punishment for others, so long as punishment isn't greater than the punishment to others from the crime. At the logical end, I don't think government should be involved at all, which would indeed mean the unloved die and the murder would go unpunished.

I voted "no" but I was assuming I was answering for the US gov't-bureaucracy, which fairly frequently falsely convicts and in a few cases this century, has even wrongly executed. Most importantly, it commits that murder in everyone's name, which is unacceptable. I can't think of any scenario where I'd kill another person, but so long as it's reasonable, I wouldn't stop someone from punishing another. So I guess in general I support the death penalty in a with-us-or-against-us way.

[Zippyjuan]

The death penalty is not a deterrant to crime- somebody who may be going to commit one which may fall under the death penalty is not taking that into consideration in my opinion. The Death Penalty is merely vengence. It does nothing to restore the person harmed by the crime. It is a perminant decision. With all the cases in recent years of people being aquitted after many years (one man this week has spent the last 30 years in jail), you remove the ablity to correct wrong convictions as well. I could list links to dozens if not hundreds of such cases. The death penalty acomplishes nothing in my opinion. No death penalty.

[txaslftist]

We have most definitely executed innocent people before. There was that project innocence study back in Illinois in 97 or so that established something like a 40% wrongful conviction rate in capital cases. Statistically we have more people in prison in the US than any other nation in the history of the world. If we can afford to house so many, we can afford to house those on death row indefinitely, too. Give them life without parole and every chance to prove their innocence.

[JK/SEA]

We have most definitely executed innocent people before. There was that project innocence study back in Illinois in 97 or so that established something like a 40% wrongful conviction rate in capital cases. Statistically we have more people in prison in the US than any other nation in the history of the world. If we can afford to house so many, we can afford to house those on death row indefinitely, too. Give them life without parole and every chance to prove their innocence.

I agree.