Why I don't support the death penalty (a response to a freeper)

[noahmijo]

It's short but I think to the point and it illustrates from a non sort of "I feel sorry for the killers" point of view that cons try to always paint us as being.

When I look at policies and how they affect people I tend to think "What if that was ME in this situation"

Of all places this guy is posting on Queensryche's fanclub site. I cannot believe how many freepers run wild on that site being that Queensryche is an openly left-of-center band but that's how it is.

Anyways this is what I said to the guy after he claimed that the death penalty is a good deterrant against crime and it doesn't matter if it isn't perfect.

Yea screw the facts. After all they're just facts. Jeez I swear have anybody who is so quick to support the death penalty ever see a person die before? ever take a life yourself? so bloodthirsty to get revenge and so blind to not understand that revenge is a loser's game you achieve nothing out of it.

It is in fact proven (sure I can post links but I've done that too many times on such type of forumns and typically supporters will just ignore them so I just don't bother anymore) that the death penalty doesn't deter murderers or potential ones.

See the thing is most people who are willing and cold enough to commit murder themselves do not fear death. They may fear other forms of punishment but death isn't one of them. A person psychotic enough to wipe out an entire family is not really going to give a shit if you offer a fast track solution to his suffering at the end of a needle.

Secondly when you're dealing with human lives it DOES have to be perfect and there cannot be any flaws. This isn't clothing we're dealing with.

See while you're in the mindset that killing to prevent killing is right because hell it's just like an Xbox game you don't consider small things like say for example you're walking home some night some crazy guy attacks you, you wind up killing the person in the heat of the fight.

You bash his brains into the concrete you realize while shaking with fear that damn it's not like on Grand Theft Auto....

Then some people who "witnessed" nothing more than you smashing the dude's head on the sidewalk call the cops and claim that they saw you brutalizing the "victim" to death.

Next thing you know you're up for murder maybe even someone who has had it in for you testifies that this was all premeditated maybe it goes to murder one and the only side the judge and or jury has to decide on are the testimonies of the 5 witnesses who claim to see you slamming a man's head into the pavement.

Oh his family is there too crying their eyes out telling everyone what a wonderful person their recently departed was.

You don't even get to tell your side without immediately being prejudged.

The fire and brimestone judge takes no time in handing down an immediate order of execution for you.

This is just one of the MANY things where all of a sudden a system you supported so much and claim "hey who cares if it's not perfect" could backfire right in your face.

At least if you were given a life sentence you'd have a chance to prove your innocence. It has happened before.

I can tell you've obviously never really sat down and looked at the world beyond one side and beyond black and white.

[kysrsoze]

1. Nice job on that. Here's another very simple explanation:

Regardless of whether someone "deserves" to die, FAR too many people are wrongly convicted because they cannot afford adequate representation. Then there are the others who have enough bankroll to get out of it when they are guilty. Just based on what I've seen in the news, I don't have any doubt the wrongful death row convictions are up over 50%.

Second, it is MUCH more expensive to put someone through the appeals process for the death penalty than to just leave them in jail.

Third, I agree with you - it's no deterrent at all. The people who commit first degree murders don't even think about the death penalty.

Lastly, thou shalt not kill.

[noahmijo]

2. I mentioned that fact actually

I asked him like I ask all freepers "Would you sacrifice your innocent life to kill 100 guilty killers?"

That's why he responded with "well it's not perfect but it works!"

not one not ONE person I have asked this question to has ever responded to me with an answer.

[Swamp Rat]

3. No, it does NOT work - he just made that up.

That's what lizard drones do, they make up stories to support their hatred.

[Momoty]

4. A deterrent...

<<it's no deterrent at all.>>

Sure it is. It deters that particular person from ever killing again.

Now, I only advocate the dp when there is irreputable dna evidence otherwise err on the side of caution no matter now many witnesses there are because witnesses can be wrong or swayed. Dna doesn't lie.

The death penalty, when properly applied, makes 100% certain that a particular person never kills again and if you think that life w/o parole guarantees that, ask the family of Donna Payant.

[Orrex]

5. Ask Mark Fuhrman about honest DNA.

The death penalty, when properly applied, makes 100% certain that a particular person never kills again and if you think that life w/o parole guarantees that, ask the family of Donna Payant.

Which would be more effective at preventing a particular convicted from killing again:

A) The death penalty, when properly applied
B) Life imprisonment without parole, properly applied

If you are free to stipulate that the death penalty be properly applied (whatever that means), then it is reasonable also to stipulate that life w/o parole be likewise properly applied.

In my interpretation, that means that the convicted murderer, while serving life w/o parole, can't kill anyone else.

With this in mind, please explain to me why it is morally superior to execute a person who has been rendered harmless as opposed to keeping him harmless in perpetuity. For the record, until you define them clearly, nebulous terms like "vengeance" and "justice" do not equate to moral superiority.

[Momoty]

6. You are assumming the convicted (and incarcerated)

has been rendered harmless.

Did you read up on Donna Payant?

Nothing to do with moral superiority here, just public safety.

[Orrex]

7. But you're tilting the scale

You're putting the death penalty properly applied on one side, while you're putting life without parole improperly applied on the other. No kidding it's going to look like life imprisonment is a joke when the equation is set up that way.

For that matter, I need to know what you mean by "death penalty properly applied" before I can go any further.

[Momoty]

8. Properly applied

First off, have you even looked at the Donna Payant case. Here's a link

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/lemuel_smith/

It was important here in NYS because Lemual Smith was initially facing the "death penalty property applied" at the time because he was found guilty of murdering a prison guard, one of the few reasons to apply it but it was overturned in the end.

Now, Pataki ostensively reinstated the dp in NYS but anyone who lives here knows it was a paper tiger. Wanna kill someone, do in it NYS. Be sent away for 25, get out in 8 with a (state paid for)PhD.

And you wonder why the average Joe/Jane votes for whatever party says no to the above.

[Orrex]

9. You still haven't defined it

What do you mean by "death penalty properly applied?" Until you reveal that secret info, this discussion can go nowhere.

Additionally, though tragic, the Payant case is anecdotal and shouldn't be used as the sole determining factor when articulating laws to be applied henceforth to anyone other than her killer.

Beyond that, you're expressly articulating an example of "life without parole, improperly applied." If it were applied properly, then Smith wouldn't have had the chance to kill while incarcerated.

So we're back to morality; why is it superior to kill a person who's been rendered harmless as opposed to keeping that person harmless in perpetuity?

[Momoty]

11. Properly Applied

As defined by states that apply it. It is not up to me to legally define it and hardly secret unless you of course deem it in your own mind.

The Payant case is hardly anectodal, it has been legally defined. You are getting way ahead of yourself.

Define rendering harmless,

[kysrsoze]

13. How can you be sure that the states correctly apply it?

"Now, I only advocate the dp when there is irreputable dna evidence otherwise err on the side of caution no matter now many witnesses there are because witnesses can be wrong or swayed. Dna doesn't lie."

DNA doesn't lie but people do and people make mistakes. There is such a thing as a tainted sample. You have cited one instance where life in prison backfired. How many people did Gov. Ryan (a Republican) remove from death row? I believe it was around 2 dozen. In that case, DNA evidence did help (though it is possible some may still be guilty).

Anyhow, is the life of one guard more important than the lives of hundreds of wrongly convicted people?

[Momoty]

14. The life of one guard

Have a chat with her family.

I have always take the position that there has to be dna evidence, not witness testimony/circumstantial for death penalty.

But there are monsters among us. Please, prove me wrong.

[Orrex]

16. So, you have no plans to define the terms as requested?

I don't understand what you're asking me to debate, since you've refused numerous direct requests to define the terms of that debate.

I'll ask again, in case you missed them:

1. How do you define "death penalty, properly applied?"
2. How do you define "life without parole, properly applied?"

I wonder why you consistently refuse to define these terms, since your arguments rest squarely upon those definitions.

You continue to weigh a properly applied death penalty against an improperly applied life sentence without parole, and you seem to recognize no inconconsistency your approach.

Help me out here--why do you feel it appropriate to apply differing standards of propriety when doling out sentences?

Your continued appeals to a specific case are an attempt to debate via emotionalism rather than logic. Her family has undeniably suffered a tragic loss, but that is, ultimately, anecdotal to the underlying debate.

[Orrex]

18. MIssed this reply earlier--sorry.

A murderer is rendered harmless when he is prevented from inflicting further harm upon other people.

Now that I've provided the definition as you've asked, please define "death penalty properly applied" and "life without parole properly applied."

The Payant case as an example is anecdotal; how many cases are on record of a free-roaming convicted murderer torturing and killing a prison guard? You can't apply this case to situations in which Murderer X was paroled and then killed again, because the Payant case has nothing to do with that kind of situation.

Far from "getting way ahead of" myself, I am in fact attempting to define the terms of the argument, which you seem unwilling to do.

[kysrsoze]

12. When properly applied...

A continuum of probable innocence exists. Just where do you draw the line on being completely sure? You could be making a mistake.

Yes, it's unfortunate to see that someone died again at the hands of a convicted murderer. But there are many more innocent lives lost due to a system that oftentimes makes the wrong decision about innocence. I'm sure lots of prosecutors are convinced someone is guilty.

And again, it's still no deterrent against anyone not on death row.

[Kenroy]

10. That's very good....

well done.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi Kenroy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[kysrsoze]

17. Yeah, come on in, Kenroy.

:headbang: