Capital Punishment: Is it right?

[XxFake_Rebel77]

Hi how y'all doin'?
I was wondering how people in general felt about the concept of capital punishment as a means of ensuring justice. It has been reciving some attention lately in the media and personally i think a reinstatement of it would be a regression concerning our society, i mean should the state be allowed to kill it's citizens or do us folks need to know consequences, are some crimes too evil for conventional methods of punishment...just throwing it out there man,.

[colmint]

Personaly I support Capital Punishment
But can never see it coming back

Regards colmint

[Henry P]

I oppose it totally in all circumstances. Its continued use in many US states taints a great nation. The execution last night in Georgia was an abomination. We have no right to take life.

[TroostAvenue]

As Governor of Texas, Rick Perry has presided over 235 executions. In a recent debate among Republican candidates for US presidency, he defended that fact and received enthusiastic applause.

I personally don't think executions can be justified morally, judicially, or from a practical point of view. But then I don't live in Texas and am not a Republican.

[Tom]

There is no justification, whether the party is guilty or innocent (or found to be guilty wrongly, as is sometimes the case) for the execution or torture of a human. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and to extend this to taking another human's life takes away any shred of 'superiority' that we believe we have a species over the animal kingdom.

[Shanalorm]

I believe in operative methodes more, like giving people
a better 're-education'. I think the problem is not with the
punishments but with the way they are dealt. In most
cases the lawyer does his job too good and makes it
impossible for the judges or jury's to decide about the ones
that committed a crime and thus unables them to be propperly
treated. People should be thaught what is good and evil
and it should not be beaten in to them, so to say.

True, it helps to make people fear punishments so they
won't do socially bad things, but I do not think that is the
way. If people would actually be taught what they do is wrong
and why, it helps a lot more.

There was actually a test in NewZealand, I believe, where
murderers were shown pictures of their victims after the murder.
The murderers were confronted with pictures of their deed and
with a movie of all the relatives and friends that could say all they
wanted to say to the killer. The results were shocking, the
unprofessional murderers and non-psychopaths got nightmares
about their deed, even when they had planned it for a year, and
most of them actually got insomnia from it. Now that I call rehabilitation.

If they would do that a lot more then the criminals would
eventually know of good and evil again, even if this could take
a hell lot of time. Also do I believe the guidance and help after
a prisonsentence should be done better. Then again that is
hard to arange when there is too little money.

[saeity]

I agree with capital punishment for certain criminals -peadophiles how do you rehabilitate someone engaging their sexual preference?

[Henry P]

you would kill paedophiles? They need treatment as well as punishment

[----------]

In a justice system punishment should be retribution not retaliation. Killing someone does not allow them to pay full penance for the crime they have committed, it is a reactionary force and does not deserve a place in any moral society. That's my opinion anyway

[WYSIWYG]

No to capital punishment..
Personally, I could'nt care less about
murderers, rapists, paedophiles etc,
If you want to kick them to death that's
fine by me, I wont lose any sleep over it.
But, all the time there is a chance
an innocent person can be executed,
and that possibility is always there,
then capital punishment cannot
be justified!

Damian

[Shanalorm]

Those who seemingly are not rehabiltitable could be.
Okay if it is in your character than it might be hard
but still possible. If you keep telling someone that a
certain part of his/her character is bad, and show
them ways of suppressing and ways of controll, they
too will be changed. They will need constant
monitoring and in most cases help, though.

[The Unknown Soldier]

Why is the punishment for killing someone being killed? What is this, 400 C.E.?

The fact that it costs more to put an inmate to death than to give them a life sentence (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty) should be reasoning enough, without going into morality.

[WYSIWYG]

Money money money....
There are much bigger and more humanistic costs involved.

Morality v Money...What an awful match up.
And sadly, I think I know the winner, the peoples winner.

Damian

[Maggie]

I am in full support of the death penalty. What I don't support is the lack of consistency in which it is implemented. I do not support the death penalty for reasons of justice, deterrent, or even revenge.

To put it rather bluntly : It is the Orkin Man. It is pest control.

Example : It is a known scientific fact that well over 70 percent of all sex offenders will re-violate, becoming more violent as they do. ( I just wanted to add they do get treatment in prisons now. It is Mandatory here )

So... These peoples, who behave in this atrocious manner, personal rights, and humanity are more important than mine, or my children, as well as our safety ?

I don't think so

[WYSIWYG]

The problem with the death penalty is the inevitable innocents that will be executed. I cannot justify one person being wrongly accused and killed as acceptable. Texas are especially good at that! I don't afford anyone who commit those heinous crimes any rights what so ever. Their death is not a problem, carry it out in any barbaric means. I wouldn't care an iota. There is no fool proof system for an absolute conviction so society is no better to consider it ok.

[Maggie]

The problem with the death penalty is the inevitable innocents that will be executed. I cannot justify one person being wrongly accused and killed as acceptable. Texas are especially good at that! I don't afford anyone who commit those heinous crimes any rights what so ever. Their death is not a problem, carry it out in any barbaric means. I wouldn't care an iota. There is no fool proof system for an absolute conviction so society is no better to consider it ok.


Yes, I think that was certainly a situation that occurred, and the only reason that would make me hesitate as well. That was before the use of DNA testing, and such,taking those odds way down. Also ... ( The last time I looked anyway ) a death row inmate is entitled to 9 appeals before his execution is carried out. I can't imagine that not eliminating the odds as well. Something I would put forth in a capital punishment case is that they are judge tried rather then jury tried. A Judge is far more in depth with laws and how they would apply than a jury. Oh ... another piece of info. A jury will nine times out of ten sentence a person to death before a judge will. ( Strangely enough... or maybe not so strange )

:)

[WYSIWYG]

Hello Maggie :giverose:
Personally, I'm quite sceptical about DNA evidence, it can 'planted' to incriminate a person, tampering is possible, cross contamination etc.
It really isn't as safe as we tend to think it is. Also It's quite rarely used due to lack of it or because someone overlooked it which leads to my next sentence. There are many reasons why/how innocent people find themselves convicted, and this applies to anywhere in the world, two of the most likely ones being wealth and race/skin colour. If you're poor and can't afford a defence then at best you're appointed one by the state who just simply cannot be bothered to try very hard and overlook evidence that may have been crucial to the defence, that's probably more common than I realise. In places like the UK and USA, if you're black you'll likely be facing a mostly white jury and there's a good chance the word guilty will be having a dance in their minds before the trial has even started.
In the real backwater places it's a possibility the jury and even the judge may have known the victim or may be related! What chance has the accused then?
Many innocent people are serving prison terms and/or awaiting execution and plenty of those sentences will be carried out in full.
For me anyway, a death sentence would have to be absolutely rock solid but I just cannot see how that will ever be possible. So therefore it shouldn't even be a consideration.

[Maggie]

Hello Maggie :giverose:
Personally, I'm quite sceptical about DNA evidence, it can 'planted' to incriminate a person, tampering is possible, cross contamination etc.
It really isn't as safe as we tend to think it is. Also It's quite rarely used due to lack of it or because someone overlooked it which leads to my next sentence. There are many reasons why/how innocent people find themselves convicted, and this applies to anywhere in the world, two of the most likely ones being wealth and race/skin colour. If you're poor and can't afford a defence then at best you're appointed one by the state who just simply cannot be bothered to try very hard and overlook evidence that may have been crucial to the defence, that's probably more common than I realise. In places like the UK and USA, if you're black you'll likely be facing a mostly white jury and there's a good chance the word guilty will be having a dance in their minds before the trial has even started.
In the real backwater places it's a possibility the jury and even the judge may have known the victim or may be related! What chance has the accused then?
Many innocent people are serving prison terms and/or awaiting execution and plenty of those sentences will be carried out in full.
For me anyway, a death sentence would have to be absolutely rock solid but I just cannot see how that will ever be possible. So therefore it shouldn't even be a consideration.


Oh yeah ... I mostly certainly get your concerns, and I can not say with any absolution ( especially in the context of other countries ) that it doesn't still happen. But as a person who lives in the States ( mostly in the South ) I can say with a certain amount of accuracy that far more guilty go free, than innocent are executed. Our laws are actually set up to safe guard our society against wrongful convictions. ( Hence why so many criminals go free, legal technicalities )

The other thing that weighs on my mind Hun is this, and maybe I am seeing it from a maternal point of view. ( I freely admit that ) BUT.... just as you say that one innocent is not worth the policy, I wonder if those many innocent lives that are harmed, and nothing is done due to insufficient evidence ? What are their worth ? What it boils down to for me is they are very much worth having this policy.

:)

[WYSIWYG]

Hi again :giverose: Once an execution takes place obviously it can never be undone if it's found wrongful at a later date. There will still be many innocent lives destroyed as in the loved ones, family and friends of the executed. Also loved ones, family and friends of the actual victim(s). They thought they had some closure but discover the one(s) responsible are still free, they also have the extra pain of someone having been killed for their benefit really. They may have even watched that person die, how on earth does one deal with that? Now they're naturally thinking about all those people connected with the executed and the pain they've had to suffer. That is horrific. At least with a life prison term any innocent ones will have something to fight for and if found to be so then the wrongs can start to be somewhat undone.
It's just how I see the death penalty situation.

[Maggie]

Hi again :giverose: Once an execution takes place obviously it can never be undone if it's found wrongful at a later date. There will still be many innocent lives destroyed as in the loved ones, family and friends of the executed. Also loved ones, family and friends of the actual victim(s). They thought they had some closure but discover the one(s) responsible are still free, they also have the extra pain of someone having been killed for their benefit really. They may have even watched that person die, how on earth does one deal with that? Now they're naturally thinking about all those people connected with the executed and the pain they've had to suffer. That is horrific. At least with a life prison term any innocent ones will have something to fight for and if found to be so then the wrongs can start to be somewhat undone.
It's just how I see the death penalty situation.

:)

Once again, points well taken :) And as I said, in the past, the occurrence of such incidences I am sure were far higher. What I am weighing in my mind is how often this happens , and how often violent offenses happen. The latter far out weighs the other in my opinion. Oh Trust me Hun... I am not trying to change your mind. I truly believe in following your own moral code. ( If you have one. I am sure you do, but not so sure about criminals )

If this clarifies my stance better W, I can say with all honesty, I have two brothers who have committed violent murder ( I have had no contact with them since they did these vile deeds ) and I personally believe neither of them should still be living. They both have been in prison ( one several times, twice being released on "technicalities" ) and both have come out more violent then they were before. A stop should have been put to it before more damage was done, also leaving far too many victims.

http://www.thepoetryforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=27105

This is why I have the mindset I do. :)

[WYSIWYG]

:giverose: Oh you can't change my mind :no:
I have a strong personal moral code, do criminals? I can't imagine violent abusive ones having much of one. Rather ironic I think that would be!
Yes, the guilty can get off with technicality issues and lack of enough proof too which is a crime in itself I believe. The judicial system in the UK is seriously backward, you could murder a child and still expect to be given freedom at some point. Maybe much sooner than you could imagine. Absolute proof they committed the crime then we can all take turns kicking them to death :rip:
Otherwise life in full until the claim of innocence is proved....

[Maggie]

:giverose: Oh you can't change my mind :no:
I have a strong personal moral code, do criminals? I can't imagine violent abusive ones having much of one. Rather ironic I think that would be!
Yes, the guilty can get off with technicality issues and lack of enough proof too which is a crime in itself I believe. The judicial system in the UK is seriously backward, you could murder a child and still expect to be given freedom at some point. Maybe much sooner than you could imagine. Absolute proof they committed the crime then we can all take turns kicking them to death :rip:
Otherwise life in full until the claim of innocence is proved....

*smiles*

Understood

Very nice talking to you W :give_rose:

[Ste]

Excuse me for if i' butting in here but i've been reading this debate between you and fascinating it is too. You are both very persuasive and articulate debators.
If i can express my opinion here without upsetting anyone...? On the whole I agree with WIZZY that we cannot condone the death penalty however I have a third opinion. Proof, absolute proof is so very difficult to find. If we all agree that life is great and those that take it away have to have some hell of a high motive for doing so (state-sponsored execution, remote controlled drones etc etc). I think the so-called advanced countries are rather good at justifying death dealing. The UK was the biggest producer of land mines don't forget.
My standpoint therefore is an absolute one. No-one has the right to take another's life. That is a deliberate murderer or a judge with the power to order execution. Yes i know there are times when any one of us might end up committing murder. If you came upon a "perp" who had just killed members of your family or was about to. Perfectly understandable. BUT, it would not make it right. Do we then kill the killer? If not then we might be weighing the relative worth of life which i don't think we can. I've sat on a jury and they are very fallible.
Sex offenders, incurable persistent etc. Then try to modify their behaviour. Electrocute their brains, cut off their man tackle. By all means. Leave them locked up. Same goes for repeat murderers.
Ultimately the crux of the matter is I think the risk we take in not killing these people has to be weighed against the wrong of taking it upon ourselves to take their life.
One option is to encourage people to take their own life or at least permit that possibility.
Sorry if i have highjacked a private debate!

[Maggie]

Sex offenders, incurable persistent etc. Then try to modify their behaviour. Electrocute their brains, cut off their man tackle. By all means. Leave them locked up. Same goes for repeat murderers.
Ultimately the crux of the matter is I think the risk we take in not killing these people has to be weighed against the wrong of taking it upon ourselves to take their life.
One option is to encourage people to take their own life or at least permit that possibility.
Sorry if i have highjacked a private debate!

:D You didn't high jack anything Ste. And yes... IF ( and that is a big if ) they would keep them in for life I probably wouldn't support the death penalty like I do. They just simply don't. I looked it up last night, and there were only about 50 executions in the US last year. Of that group, 75 percent were repeat offenders, and 45 percent were repeat murderers. They have killed more than once. Of all the people on trial for murder last year in the US, over 30 percent got off, or their sentences were reduced due to legal maneuvering, allowing for parole. Scary thought huh ? As I said in my original post, I do not support how the death penalty is implemented. But until my government gets off its butt and comes up with a solution to the very victimization of their law abiding people ( One girl in Kansas was just recently going to be tried for defending her home because she shot a burglar who broke in and raped her, threatening to kill her baby while he did it. They released her due to public outcry ) then I can't take the death penalty off the table either Hun :)

[Ste]

I agree entirely that letting these people out on technicalities etc makes a mockery of the whole system.
The problem with rape is that it is not just a sexual offence. It is apparently often just a power / anger trip by powerless people. They don't even get it up. Man's inhumanity to man knows no bounds.
There's a whole lot of society that needs changing. The pressures we put ourselves under. The greed and competitiveness we all (ALL) experience.

I just remain at my absolute position that it is a slippery slope when we say that life-taking can be sanctioned. Surely that is one thing we can say that elevates us above our origins? If not then we are no different from animals who know no difference?
My two penn'orth for what it's worth! :duel:

[Maggie]

I agree entirely that letting these people out on technicalities etc makes a mockery of the whole system.
The problem with rape is that it is not just a sexual offence. It is apparently often just a power / anger trip by powerless people. They don't even get it up. Man's inhumanity to man knows no bounds.
There's a whole lot of society that needs changing. The pressures we put ourselves under. The greed and competitiveness we all (ALL) experience.

I just remain at my absolute position that it is a slippery slope when we say that life-taking can be sanctioned. Surely that is one thing we can say that elevates us above our origins? If not then we are no different from animals who know no difference?
My two penn'orth for what it's worth! :duel:


LOL Put your sword down :D

As I told W. I have no want or need to change anyone's mind. That moral center should speak from there not from what someone tells you. As I also told W I have personal experience with this from the criminal side with my two brothers. They and my own roots within The Nations of the Americas ( Lakota Indians ) tells me this is necessary ( As I told W in another thread if you caused harm one too many times to the people you lived with, they killed you ) I am not saying it is ever a good thing. I simply see it as necessary.

[Ste]

Point taken!

Wow, Lakota! There's a huge amount to talk about there.

I once read a book called "The last kings of Thule" which was an anthropological study of the Inuit before and during the Cold War events. Fascinating in its own right. They had an interesting take on life.

[Maggie]

Point taken!

Wow, Lakota! There's a huge amount to talk about there.

I once read a book called "The last kings of Thule" which was an anthropological study of the Inuit before and during the Cold War events. Fascinating in its own right. They had an interesting take on life.

Yep... My mother's mother was a full blooded Lakota, born on Rosebud rez. Strangely enough it was my Da who would take me back there to learn about them. Their history is not what many imagine, and their pre-Anglo social system worked, extremely well.

But that is for another thread :)

Thanks Hun :)

[WYSIWYG]

Hehe just a quick one. Hi Ste, no convo in a public forum can be private! :wave:
picking on your point of killing an attacker of a family member but it still not being the right thing to do. I don't see how it would be wrong, they don't have a right of protection especially at the moment. I'd say fair enough, he got what he deserved, good riddance.
Maggie :giverose: There was a similar case over here a while back, not as bad as rape though. A couple of lads were robbing a farmers home, he caught them, they ran out of the property and he shot and killed one of them. He went to prison, remand possibly, then ensues public media outcry and it wasn't too long before he was out again. It's much more likely now that a person won't be convicted in similar situations. A good thing I say.

[Poppy]

I will come in from another angle (the juror).

My stint was nothing such as murder..but it was a fascinating insight to how the law works or maybe does not work - depending what side of the fence you sit on.

The one thing that struck me more than anything else, is how good your legal representation is - because they can make or break your case.

Then when it comes down to the jury themselves, you have serving jurors all of different levels of intellect, plus age (as it should be) but you can see how some members can be swayed to change their mind if some jurors are more persistent in their sway (also the judge always sums up - and gives you guiders) which you have to hope all jurors can follow!

I am not suggesting there is any other way then members of the public making that final verdict.
Just very scary if you are innocent - knowing that it is not as simple as the 'truth' be told and heard - there are a lot of players also involved, and of course money as to what level of legal representation you can afford.
Because when it comes to law - money does count and talk.

Poppy ~xx~

[Ste]

Very true Poppy.

My experience of jury service was a rape case. And all the "she was asking for it, there, looking like that, with her history" crap. Frustrated me immensely. Why can one person judge another. I withdrew back into anarchy.

Ron, i hear you too. It might be understandable and wrong at the same time. What i was really saying was that two wrongs don't make a right!

[WYSIWYG]

How can a right be a wrong?? :duel: :-) Who's Ron?.......

Twelve angry men is an excellent old film about a jury perspective and how
easy a person can jump to a decision of guilty, also how a person can be swayed for either correct reasons or very incorrect reasons.
Well worth watching indeed.

[Maggie]

It might be understandable and wrong at the same time

Yep...

This is how I define killing ( which can be justified for legal or moral reasons ) and murder ( which is unjustified by any legal or moral reasons, and in my book always requires malice of fore thought. )

To me they are two different things. :)

[Poppy]

How can a right be a wrong?? :duel: :-) Who's Ron?.......

Twelve angry men is an excellent old film about a jury perspective and how
easy a person can jump to a decision of guilty, also how a person can be swayed for either correct reasons or very incorrect reasons.
Well worth watching indeed.

Which is more or less what I said.

Time even plays a factor - people wanting to get home!!

Poppy ~xx~

[Maggie]

I will come in from another angle (the juror).

My stint was nothing such as murder..but it was a fascinating insight to how the law works or maybe does not work - depending what side of the fence you sit on.

The one thing that struck me more than anything else, is how good your legal representation is - because they can make or break your case.

Then when it comes down to the jury themselves, you have serving jurors all of different levels of intellect, plus age (as it should be) but you can see how some members can be swayed to change their mind if some jurors are more persistent in their sway (also the judge always sums up - and gives you guiders) which you have to hope all jurors can follow!

I am not suggesting there is any other way then members of the public making that final verdict.
Just very scary if you are innocent - knowing that it is not as simple as the 'truth' be told and heard - there are a lot of players also involved, and of course money as to what level of legal representation you can afford.
Because when it comes to law - money does count and talk.

Poppy ~xx~

Yeah Poppy I agree. This is a big part of the problem. Hence why I think a capital murder case should always be over seen by a judge. It isn't a perfect fix, but I can't see it not helping. :)

[Ste]

Oops apologies to WIZZY and probably to Ron too!

I've had a few murderous thoughts about those who perpetrate inhumanties. But then does that set myself up as an avenging angel?
I am just not wise enough to make a judgement and I therefore don't think anyone else is either.

12 Angry men is a superlative film. Henry Fonda is excellent

[Maggie]

Oops apologies to WIZZY and probably to Ron too!

I've had a few murderous thoughts about those who perpetrate inhumanties. But then does that set myself up as an avenging angel?
I am just not wise enough to make a judgement and I therefore don't think anyone else is either.

12 Angry men is a superlative film. Henry Fonda is excellent

understandable :)

You put me in mind of the Mennonites during the Civil War. Look them up, and read about how they handled themselves.

Truly honorable people :)

[Ste]

I don't need to look them up. My dear old Auntie always said i should become a quaker. She lived just a short walk from the cradle of quakerism - Swarthmoor Hall.

[Poppy]

Yeah Poppy I agree. This is a big part of the problem. Hence why I think a capital murder case should always be over seen by a judge. It isn't a perfect fix, but I can't see it not helping. :)

ON the case I sat in on Maggie, I truly prayed that should (heaven forbid) I ever need legal representation I had someone who knew their stuff like the defence barrister did - prosecution was hopeless.

As for the jury, the young hated it - bored out of their minds, some totally OTT took it upon themselves to be judge and jury, a couple made no comments, and just wanted it to end, so would have voted either way.

The whole process (here anyway) is just so protracted its unbelievable.
Because I was self employed and could not give any concrete loss of earning, I gave two weeks of my time for travel expenses - then when you take into account the actual time involved on the case came to less than 10 hours...it is crazy - but there you have to sit waiting to go down and here the case.

When you weigh up the costs involved, the time - not to mention someone's life, reputation whatever - it is a very hit and miss affair.

Poppy ~xx~

[Maggie]

When you weigh up the costs involved, the time - not to mention someone's life, reputation whatever - it is a very hit and miss affair.

Exactly that is why I said I can't support the manner in which the law is applied. The "hit and misses" as you put it need to be at the very least minimized.

[Maggie]

I don't need to look them up. My dear old Auntie always said i should become a quaker. She lived just a short walk from the cradle of quakerism - Swarthmoor Hall.


Your have the strength of that conviction. That is to be respected. My Da told me what they were like during the Korean War. He called them some of the bravest soldiers on the field. None carried weapons, and refused to kill.

But they were still there getting shot at as they did medic work.

Amazing stuff :)

[Ste]

People, all people, are truly amazing. Within each of us there is a hero and a coward, a murderer and a saviour, a thing of clay and bitter emotions. Folk are generally great individually. Together however...........
I don't believe in evil per se...... discuss!

[Maggie]

There was a similar case over here a while back, not as bad as rape though. A couple of lads were robbing a farmers home, he caught them, they ran out of the property and he shot and killed one of them. He went to prison, remand possibly, then ensues public media outcry and it wasn't too long before he was out again. It's much more likely now that a person won't be convicted in similar situations. A good thing I say.

I agree W


Protection of home, family, and self is a basic human right :)

[Maggie]

People, all people, are truly amazing. Within each of us there is a hero and a coward, a murderer and a saviour, a thing of clay and bitter emotions. Folk are generally great individually. Together however...........
I don't believe in evil per se...... discuss!


Now that is a whole nother can of worms Buster ! lol

Start a new thread :D