Compelling arguments in favor of the death penalty...

[seaglass]

Do you have one?

I'm doing a pro death penalty project for one of my classes and I am anti.

I would love to hear a convincing argument for the death penalty.

The only one I have so far is based on an ethical argument that it is more humane to be killed via dp than to live out the slow torture of life in prison w/out parole. Even that argument is kind of stretching it for me.

From John Stuart Mill:
"What comparison can there really be, in point of severity, between consigning a man to the short pang of a rapid death, and immuring him in a living tomb, there to linger out what may be a long life in the hardest and most monotonous toil, without any of its alleviations or rewards--debarred from all pleasant sights and sounds, and cut off from all earthly hope, except a slight mitigation of bodily restraint, or a small improvement of diet?"

[JJackFlash]

1. I've always been in favor of TDP

simply because it's been the traditional punishment for the worst crimes from the beginning of human history till about 30 years ago.
Society has every right to snuff out the worst among us. It helps to prevent vigilante justice, as well.
Everybody dies.

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. You're in favor of it because it's been tradition????

So was slavery for quite a while.

The death penalty creates a culture of violence....it will INCREASE vigilante justice of anything! Think about it....some guy sees the state killing because they have determined they have a right to kill in response to certain things. Hey, maybe that guy can rationalize claiming that same right by pointing to the state!

[AtrumAnimus]

30. Irrational logic

That makes the point that the individual is incapable of making an independant decision and will do what the state does. No basis in fact. Where is the proof?

[SledDriver]

2. One argument:

In the long run, it will cost $$$ to keep someone alive in prison for 10, 20, 30, 40 years or more. You'll have to provide a place to house them for that long, feed them, clothe them, provide medical care, guards, etc... there's no charge to them, and they don't contribute anything positive to society.

Killing them reduces those costs, and also ensures that they will never escape or be released (accidentally) back onto society.

Of course, if you execute the wrong person... :shrug:

[bettyellen]

4. are you kidding? it's way more expensive to be on death row.....

i say life in a fairly spartan enviornment. it's a horrible sentance.

[JJackFlash]

7. life w/o parole may be a worse sentence

but i don't care.
I want serial killers and torture killers to stop breathing ASAP.

[bettyellen]

8. see texas troubles me.

too many innocent people have died. and i don't care if life's a worse punishment. i'm not that much of a bleeding heart. but i don't want to advocate our very fallible and elitist justice system "playing god" . our system is too fucked to kill the most heinous criminals- so they'll kill the poorest instead.

[JJackFlash]

9. too many

Agreed that the texas system is most unjust.
When Chimpy the Killer was campaigning in 2000 he was executing one every two weeks, without even bothering to review their cases.
I made noise at that time about one he executed at that time, Odell Barnes, who I thought was probably innocent.

[Harper_is_Bush]

21. You recognize an inherrant problem with DP system...unjust application...

and yet you support it.

:eyes:

[serryjw]

24. Correct...It is!

I have always been on the fence until:

Event Transcript
Governor George Ryan: An Address on the Death Penalty
Monday, June 3, 2002
5pm
University of Chicago Divinity School
Chicago, Illinois

George H. Ryan is the Governor of Illinois. He was elected the state’s 39th governor on November 3, 1998, continuing a career of public service that included terms as secretary of state (1991-1999) and lieutenant governor (1983-91). Ryan also had an accomplished 10-year legislative career (1973-1983) in the Illinois House. In January 2000, Ryan instituted the nation’s first (and still only) moratorium on state executions, pending a thorough review of the capital judicial process. “Until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection,” he announced, “no one will meet that fate." Two months later, Ryan formed the Governor’s Commission on Capital Punishment to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the state’s policy and process of administering the death penalty. Recently, in April 2002, the Commission recommended more than 80 changes to the state’s capital punishment system—proposed reforms that will likely prompt many states across the country to reexamine how capital punishment is being carried out.

BTW he is a Republican. The enire Capital System is broken, IMO. Until we can bring racial equality to the process I could never support it.

[Orrex]

11. Incorrect on all three counts

In the long run, it will cost $$$ to keep someone alive in prison for 10, 20, 30, 40 years or more. You'll have to provide a place to house them for that long, feed them, clothe them, provide medical care, guards, etc... there's no charge to them, and they don't contribute anything positive to society.

By the time the appeal process has been exhausted, the cost to try, sentence, and execute a person exceeds the cost of life in prison. Besides which, it is horrifying and barbaric to execute someone just because the price is right.

Killing them reduces those costs, and also ensures that they will never escape or be released (accidentally) back onto society.

The inability of a legal system to contani its prisoners is no excuse to execute them.

Of course, if you execute the wrong person...

That is an insurmountable objection.

Except in a circumstance in which there is no way to stop a person from committing grievous harm, outside of killing that person, then capital punishment is institutionalized murder. It reflects the very lowest depths of our society and should be abandoned as the regressive, primitive blood-savagery that it is.

[SledDriver]

15. Well...OK

By the time the appeal process has been exhausted, the cost to try, sentence, and execute a person exceeds the cost of life in prison.

Maybe, if the prison, court, and death row facility all have the word HILTON on them. But whether the person is sentenced to death or life in prison, the cost to try and sentence them are already included. So that leaves the appeal process and the cost of clothing and housing and feeding said convict. A person sentenced to death has an average of 7 years? A person sentenced to life could conceivably go 40, 50, 60 years?

Besides which, it is horrifying and barbaric to execute someone just because the price is right.
No argument there. I was just presenting an argument above, I didn't say I was in favor of it. :-)

continuing...
The inability of a legal system to contani its prisoners is no excuse to execute them

Agreed. So we either change the laws to reduce sentences and allow potential predators back on the streets sooner (revolving door) or reduce the threshhold of when an act is considered a crime ("she was asking for it"), or we build more prisons (NIMBY). :shrug:

"Of course, if you execute the wrong person..."
This was the foil to the arguments above. You can't guarantee that a truly innocent person won't be executed (hence the 7 year appeal process).

...then capital punishment is institutionalized murder.
True. But it is supposed to be reserved for those who commit the most grievous of crimes as society's last measure of defense.

[Che_Nuevara]

28. Your first point here is wrong.

The mandatory appeals process is what wrenches it. The average death penalty case, from day 1 to execution, costs two to four that of the average life sentence case, from day one to death.

"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000."

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

[Czolgosz]

17. Pretrial investigation of a capital case is at least 3 times costlier,

trial is at least 15 times costlier, appeals are at least 20 times costlier. Contrary to what many non-lawyers might presume, the pretrial investigation and the trial are by far the costliest part of the process, not the appeals or the actual incarceration.

See the facts for yourself: <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=7&did=918>

Even when you figure in the extra costs of a longer incarceration in a life without chance of parole conviction, capital cases are still much more expensive because of the much greater costs of pretrial investigation and trial associated with such extreme penalties. See Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002

[poverlay]

3. I only need one: child molestation n/t

[ashling]

5. I am against the death penalty for one reason

I feel that it is an equitable penalty for the most heinous crimes, imo. But, it can never be applied fairly and justly . . . as with any other crime, there is always the chance that some piece of exculpatory evidence was not uncovered, or worse suppressed. With other penalties, however, there is always the chance of pardon or parole. There is no appeal or pardon after a person has been put to death.

[JJackFlash]

6. "...it can never be applied fairly and justly"

Yes, it can. A large percentage of murder convictions are open-and-shut cases where the murderer was caught red-handed, or where there isn't a shadow of a doubt.

[Orrex]

12. Citations, please?

I'd like to read about a few of these cases with no "shadow of a doubt."

[ashling]

13. Who chooses which ones are open and shut

according to B* they were all open and shut, but, as you mentioned before, you disagreed with him. That may seem like an extreme and/or unfair analogy, but is it really? I think not.

I agree that there are cases that seem so clear, that are so heinous, that they cry for an end. But one person's open and shut is anothers lingering doubt. There are many cases where a person has been locked up for a crime that was "open and shut" who were later found to be innocent. In that case the individual often has a chance to start over, but not if they have been put to death.

And I am not even taking racism, homophopia, and other forms of social terrorism into consideration.

Our system of justice is not infallible.

[eallen]

10. One argument is that it provides a punishment to those facing life anyway.

Without capital punishment, a criminal who is already serving long prison sentence, or who is already at risk of long prison sentence, has no disincentive -- and sometimes an incentive -- to murder to prevent that. Such a person literally has nothing left to lose. The relevant examples are killing during an escape attempt, killing a witness to a crime, killing a kidnap victim, etc. These are all circumstances where killing can mitigate risk of punishment, without bringing threat of significant additional punishment if caught. If the death penalty were limited to such special circumstances, if it were applied with regularity in such circumstances, and if that purpose were widely understood, it could provide important disincentive.

Of course, that's an argument for a hypothetical kind of capital punishment, rather than for capital punishment as it actually is practiced. None of those ifs apply to capital punishment as now practiced. The argument also has the weakness that the risk of capital punishment is a barrier that can be crossed but once. The convict who killed while escaping prison now has no incentive not to kill a witness to the crime. But at least the state of "nothing left to lose" has been made one step harder to reach.

[Orrex]

14. There are no compelling arguments in favor of the death penalty

At best, there are arguments of necessity, but even these are flawed and inadequate.

The killing of a person who has been rendered harmless is murder. Even a violent mass murderer can be rendered harmless by placing him in permanent solitary confinement.

[auntAgonist]

18. There are no compelling arguments in favor of the death penalty.

I agree!

Life in prison, is life in prison. No parole, no special favours.

[seaglass]

16. Thanks all for taking the time to respond, I can't seem to get

anywhere on this.

I think my prof has something against me and that's why she picked me to be the leader of the pro-DP side:(

Actually I just thought of one.

If someone is sentenced to death, they have the right to free counsel. In addition their appeals are heavily scrutinized because it's a matter of life/death. Lastly, there are groups such as the Innocence Project that will use their resources to help those (some) sentenced to death.

Inmates sentenced to life w/o parole are not guaranteed free counsel and have less of a chance of getting any attention from lawyers or outside groups because they don't have death hanging over their heads.

So, if you are innocent - your chances of getting out of prison are higher if you are sentenced to death than if you are sentenced to life w/o parole.

[SamuelAlito]

23. You may have noticed

that one of the top "innocence project" candidates just last week was found, thirteen years after his execution, to have in fact been guilty. Sometimes people over-scrutinize, and sometimes people get drawn in by a sucker.

Is the world made a better place because Charles Manson is still in prison, not facing the death penalty, the subject of various love-cults?

The Right Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
(the A stands for Awesome.

[minavasht]

19. How about

the chance that they can get out one day?
When can you trust a murderer? How do you know that Mark Chapman will not decide to kill somebody else the day after he is released? He did it once, didn't he?

[bothwell]

22. Referendum

If there was a public referendum in the USA regarding the DP what would the result be and would it be split along party lines?
The latest statistics I saw over here said that the British people would overwhemingly vote for it's reinstatment but its never going to happen

[Che_Nuevara]

29. That's not the issue at stake.

It's death penalty vs. life without parole. Death penalty candidates, if they do not get the death penalty, get life without parole. That means they never get out.

[annofark]

25. Victims Families

1. Saves money
2. Victims families want the person dead to move on.

[Che_Nuevara]

27. No, it doesn't save money.

See my post above.


And closure is a myth. A big one. It doesn't bring the person back. It doesn't make them less dead. Why don't you ask the families of victims of executed criminals, about 5 years later, whether it actually made them feel any better?

[Odin2005]

26. The DP should only be used for traitors and war criminals.

[AtrumAnimus]

31. There is no “Great Argument” for the death penalty

The bottom line is that there is no “Great Argument” for the death penalty.

It may or may not save money. That should be irrelevant. Saving money by killing or not killing someone is an amoral argument. It should not have a bearing on the decision.

Executing the wrong person is a huge concern and there should never be any doubt. Without 100% certainty of the accused being the killer there should be no question of the death penalty.

Execution as a deterrent is unproven, although the recidivism rate is a fact – 0% of people executed commit another crime.

Is it justice to execute someone? In my opinion it is not.

Why?

One definition of justice is the upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.

While most states have a different definition of a capital murder that warrants he death penalty they basically have one common thread. "Aggravated first-degree murder" usually when committing another crime. That description makes it sound civilized, almost.

Then the death penalty is not truly just. If a person goes on death row and is in fact guilty of the crime, the death penalty is not a fair punishment for their crime.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a person that will rape and torture then murder a child. There is something deeply broken in an individual that will kill a person for $5.00.

There is a sad fact about our humanity, it has a very dark and sinister side. Part of our tribe includes the most heinous and vicious of killers. These people have no respect for human life and would discard your life with less thought to where they throw a cigarette butt. Can these people be helped or changed? I seriously doubt it. I may not be an expert, But I have been a victim of violent crime and I was left for dead. I have been on the receiving end of the criminal that will kill to steal.

I was lucky, I survived.

I honestly believe that the people that attempted to murder me went on to probably kill someone else. Why? That is part of who they are. It is not a social issue, or environment. It is a hard wired issue combined with social and environmental factors. I believe that some people, like cars, are lemons. They are broken and can never be repaired. And as long as they are free in the public the potential for them to kill will always exist.

So back to the point, Why isn’t the Death Penalty just?

Simple, It isn’t vicious and murderous in it’s application. Sure it is murder because it meets the definition of homicide. But the fact remains that the person is not brutally beaten, tortured or raped by their captors. This may be true their fellow inmates, but is that really surprising based on their violent nature to begin with?

When compared to the treatment of their victims they are humanely treated, shown respect and given a peaceful death.

If the Death Penalty were justice then they would be executed in the same fashion that they murdered their victim(s). If they murdered more than one person, then they would be revived and executed again for every murder they committed. That would be Justice, because that would be fair.

You’re obvious reaction should be “This guy is just angry and wants revenge for the crimes committed against him.”

You would have been right several years ago, but you are wrong now. Here I am almost ten years later. Being angry that long is a huge waste of energy and makes it very difficult to live a happy life. Holding on to anger, to me, is a waste of my life.

I know it sounds like eye for an eye, but it isn’t. It is fair and just in the sense of they did unto others. It is also fair and just in just plain cold hard mathematics. When you remove the emotion tied to such a calculation: Crime = Punishment.

Execution is not justice for what they did. Execution is an easy way out compared to how their victims died. The rape and murder of a child is not equal in punishment to lethal injection. The murder of a wife and mother by gunshot during a robbery is not equal to lethal injection.

So the bottom line is that execution is not justice. The punishment does not fit the crime.

The next question is:

What punishment does fit the crime? What level of suffering can be applied as punishment to these people that we can live with dolling out? How can we do to them, something so horrible, that justice would be served. The how do we can still live with ourselves?

The answer is “None.” We aren’t like these people, we can’t do the things they do because we aren’t capable of these actions. So we resort to Lethal Injection because it is easier, cleaner and helps with our conscience. It is the form of horrible punishment that some of us can live with.

The reason for the death penalty breaks down to one point only.

Executed criminals will never commit their crime again. As long as they live there is a possibility that they will kill a guard or another inmate. There is the possibility of escape and more murders of the desperate killer with nothing to lose. Until we can guarantee that they will never kill again for the rest of anyone’s life then we take an unnecessary risk.

What alternatives are there?

If we can not execute them then how can we guarantee they will never kill again?

Perhaps we should keep them in induced coma’s till they are so atrophied that they are not a threat to anyone. Wake them up once a week for 30 minutes in the yard then knock them out again. Justice is still not served, but they are too weak to be threat to anyone.

To me the only argument for execution is that if you save one life of a person that contributes to society by executing a known murderer then that is worth it. That is the only argument for the death penalty.

[Che_Nuevara]

32. We can punish injustice; we can never have justice.

Punishing an injustice isn't "just". It doesn't make things "right", and it doesn't undo the injustice. Where there is injustice done, there can never be justice, no matter what we do to the perpetrator.

[FILAM23]

33. I would go along with

life without parole if it was life in solitary
otherwise kill the bastard.