Death Penalty
 

Do you believe that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for some crimes? -- If not, why so? If so, why? (Is it ever justifiable?)
Do you believe certain crimes, like murder are the only time the death penalty should be "on the table"?
What do you think about the numbers of men vs women on death row? -- Why do you think there are less women are on death row?

This is another issue I am personally undecided about it. I am interested in hearing both sides.

My views for the moment however are; while I do not agree with murder, I am not sure if it is worth it (money-wise) to host some of these people in prison for life without parole instead of the death penalty--that said, the death penalty can get expensive too because of the cost of lawyers (and the court case in general) and time spent on "death row" (which I'm told is more expensive than just normal incarceration--but do the costs add up over time?)

I disagree completely with the death penalty, at any given point in time or whatever the crime done. Killing off the person, whatever wrong they may have done, is still taking a life. Someone else becomes a murderer. It's not morally right, to me. It also seems like an easy way out; why suffer the rightful punishment if you can just die? You're here then you're not. Punishment? Suffering for the crime done? Where is that in death? Sure death is humilliating, but to me not worth it at all.

Prison costs may be a tad high in the long run, I guess. I don't understand very well how that works, though I'm aware we're the ones paying for it. XD But even in the case of serial killers, psychopaths, whatever. The right punishment is for them to suffer, and you can't suffer if you're dead. As for the counter-argument "well if they're psychopaths, they don't really suffer for what they've done", true, true... But I always like to think prisons are a place of rape and stabbing someone half to death over and over and over again.

As for the numbers between women and men, I apologize but I don't know anything about it. We don't have death penatly where I'm from, or if we do, that was never put in place within the twenty years I've been alive. I can't give an opinion at all.

But they don't suffer in prison--prison feeds and bathes and clothes them, provides medicine and anything else they need--it's basically a hotel for criminals. >__< Chances are many criminals from lower class areas especially, have a better life in terms of need fulfillment in prison than they do outside of it.

Also the numbers for men vs women on death row:

On the lower class terms, I'm going to have to agree with you; it does sound incredibly unfair that they have technology at their disposal, and their necessities fulfilled, and food, water, etc., but those are basic needs. They're still humans, and every human has the right to life and basic care. Which was also a point I forgot on my original post: every human has the right to live. I don't think any kind of crime (even premeditated murder) should override that first and most important human right.

And before I forget, I find that in the cases of the criminals being, for example, in jail right in their twenties and being released in their sixties a very big and just punishment; coming back to society is a big step, if you've been in prison for the longest part of your life, surely that brings them suffering. They have to say they're criminals when they're looking for a job, and not most companies will hire a convict, so the hunt for money and the poor conditions they're left in is, I think, one of the biggest punishments they might endure.

And wow for the numbers, that really is a big difference... Could it be because women commit less crimes and they're usually crimes of passion and men are most likely to commit premeditated murder and more often?

Perhaps, but still 1 in 10 murders are committed by a woman.

I was reading this and then the following page, which explains why many women "get away" with murder, so in reality, the number could be higher--but women are convicted of murder, much less. (Though I think it might be a touch biased, the way it presents itself seems a bit too far towards the other end of the spectrum where "all women are evil and men are victims.")

So, just a thought. Men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime (except rape), too.

I think the numbers are too far deviated from the actual numbers of convictions, for it to be just a matter of "well women commit crimes less." Their motives are usually different however, so maybe that contributes.

I also found this really interesting.

n___n;;~ I find this topic very interesting, so sorry if I'm boring you.

----------

I agree, I'm just saying that people act like prison is OMG THE WORST THING EVER--and I'm not saying it's great, there's a lot of prison crime...but, sometimes I think it's a little *too* cushy...which leads to costly which leads to more taxes...which begs the question is it cheaper to kill 'em, or keep them alive for the next 60 years?

xDD I hope that wasn't too confusing where I was going with that.

There are a lot of reasons that I oppose the death penalty, but I think the fact that we still make mistakes is good enough alone. There's a reason we keep the appeals process open and available even to those convicted of the worst imaginable crimes. There's no appealing after execution.

Oh my, thanks a ton for that link! This is very interesting information indeed (specially for someone who wants to be a forensic psychologist, like me! :D). Something that popped into my eye (and yours as well), was that those pages all state women are most likely to kill defenceless beings (children, the elderly) and also according to it, we pick less traceable methods for the deed too. So basically, yes, it is very likely that there are less women caught because they're... Instinctively smarter killers?

I found this, and after a basic search, I've come to the conclusion that there's only a tiny, very small percentage of women on death row. One percent in each state, maybe? Statistic: not my strong suit. Now, in itself, I'm going to have to say this seems a tad unfair, not to say sexist. If women kill and so do men, why can't they be treated equally? Even with different psychological disorders, it's still death, so the same punishment should be given. But again, certainly not death row.

Not confusing at all! I can understand exactly what you're trying to say, yeah. And I have to be honest, the thought that everyone is paying for the bed&breakfast style of life that convicts live is... Well, I can't say I'm pleased. You might have a very good point that it's cheaper to kill them, I can't argue with that. I just put life above anything else, so in my personal opinion (anyone can beg to differ on this. XD), I'd rather pay for their lives that watch them get killed. I can't help it, I guess my mentality is that life should be above all else, even in the case of "an eye for an eye".

I hope you understand my position is mostly moral, I have no grounds on any other position to justify my stand on this. And I said earlier I didn't know whether my country had death penalty; I talked to my friend this morning and Portugal does not have death penalty. We're not even big on the whole staying-in-prison-for-life thing, but that's a whole different story.

The death penalty is useless. Period. Places with the death penalty have higher crime rates, especially murder, than places without. Wrongful executions aside, I think even the most die-hard conservative would agree that if killing someone serves no purpose at all, don't do it. You must have a reason to kill beyond "I just really want to see this person dead", which is what most pro-death penalty arguments boil down to. You may want to, that's fine, but the law should not honour your request.

Yeah, pretty much my thoughts. =] & you're welcome.

XD Well, I don't know if for a fact it ends up cheaper--in the short term it isn't, but I wonder about the long term (but all that math and ALL the different numbers available make it hard to pinpoint to long-term costs).

I think it was Gandhi who said I mean, I like supporting human life, but, I also would prefer to protect the rights of people who haven't done anything wrong--why should this person's wallet be punished because this person killed 20 women?

I'm not saying I'm for or against the death penalty, simply that I see both sides, and while I like human life, I also like protecting people that haven't done a damn thing. :(

I can see that economical point of yours... But unfortunately the only solution I find available would be the cost for keeping the prisioner in prison should come from said person's funds on the bank, but I don't think that's either viable or ethic. Though I just remembered the Johnny English movie where that french bad guy wanted to turn England into a prison and put every criminal in the world in it. I guess if all countries divided the costs, the personal fee, so to speak, would be very little... But let it be said I'm against this crazy movie's idea. XD

Don't you think you might be generalising a bit in that? I can make a good pro-death penalty argument if I have to without my personal opinion of whether or not someone should be allowed to live.

Given that I said "most", no, I don't believe I was. However, that was perhaps too generous of me, because I've never heard a pro-death penalty argument (not based on falsehoods, anyway) that did not come down to revenge fantasies. They admit it's not an economical solution, they admit it does not serve as a deterrent, they admit innocent people have been killed and will continue to be killed as long as the death penalty is practiced, they may even agree that it is a human rights violation. But they want people to "pay" for what they've done (why they must "pay" or why a prison system that practices slavery and intentional malnutrition and doesn't seem too interested in stopping inmate-on-inmate or guard-on-inmate violence doesn't count as "paying" is rarely mentioned), and they want to know they are dead. Being pro-death penalty requires one to be okay with humans killing one another in non-self defense situations, and you can't try and sterilize it and remove that fact from the issue.

I can, however, say that certain people, namely psychopaths, feel no empathy or rather, no emotion at all, and if they can get back out, they will kill again. And again. And again. And again. And they will either never get caught and the victim count will rise through the roof, or they get caught and then what? Released again? To do what, the same thing? Because we all know that's what will happen, correct? They have to redemption, they do not understand anything else other than the wonder of death, and thus, I do believe it's a favour done to both society and the families of the victims, and the convict in question, as death is the only thing that will ever stop them, and consequentally, more death. For the greater good, one might be inclined to say.

Psychopaths are rarely murderers, and murderers are rarely true psychopaths. Continuing killing because of the tiny, tiny percentage to which you refer is quite frankly ridiculous. Nevermind that by saying they will, absolutely, kill whenever they can, you imply that they cannot do otherwise. Meaning they aren't responsible for their actions, and are exactly the sort of people we shouldn't be executing. And "if they can get back out"? How, exactly? Please do not fall into the trap so often seen in these discussions, where the only considered options are either killing people or letting them freely roam the streets. If you mean prison escapes, those are rare considering how many prisons and how many inmates we have in this country; escapees who were convicted of murder are even rarer. And, despite your suggestion, rarely do the few successful prison escapees immediately go back to whatever it was that got them put there in the first place. They attempt to stay under the radar, and murdering all over the place doesn't aid in that.

Further, if indeed we're talking about "the greater good", how does continuing a practice which, at best, does not lower murder rates, and at worst, may somehow contribute to raising them (murder rates actually tend to increase when the death penalty is introduced to an area), accomplish that?

Do you have a source for that Phil?
I'm really curious by it...but it seems shocking, almost unbelievable. D:
You know?

Executions actually end up costing the taxpayer significantly more than lifelong prison terms, primarily because death row inmates tend to make much heavier use of the appeals system.

So why should our wallets be punished for the sake of killing people?

Well, I used to, before my computer died. I can't find it again now, unfortunately :/

I do have this, it's not exactly what you're asking for but it is useful:
Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center

Neither I nor anyone else is claiming to know exactly why it raises. It could be one of those odd things, like the lower murder rates post-Roe v. Wade, that just can't really be explained but seems to be the case. All we can say for certain is that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent.

Hm, no. I didn't imply that. =/

As for getting out. Prison convicts can appeal, can they not? That's what I meant. Nothing is preventing them from winning and being able to get out of prison (except maybe, a bad lawyer).

You know why crime rates increase when the death penatly is available? It's the risk. Risk of getting caught and such a great punishment gives criminals a thrill, so if they can get away with the crime, it brings them immense satisfaction. That's why the rates increase, if not the only reason, then one of the reasons.

Now as for "the greater good". Let me put it this way, go with me on this: you have a train, with fifty people in it, heading towards a bridge split in half. Fifty people will die. However, there's a switch you can pull so the train switches tracks, but in the middle of the other track, there's a person who will die if you pull the switch. What do you do? Kill one person or fifty?

I understand it's not the same situation, but it is the same choice to be made. You can't think someone will commit only one murder, chances are they'll do it again, heck, even in prison, so saying "oh, it's only one murder" is not a viable argument, neither is saying "oh death penalty raises crime rates". It might, but it's certainly not the same person doing it. The person is dead, now, surely he/she won't do it again. You cut the root of evil, in a way. Death penalty does what it does, it kills off the person who commited the crime so they will not do it again.

That's not how it works. It's a long and convoluted process, but here's my understanding of it:

An appeal is not a retrial. The petitioner will only win the appeal if they can show new evidence that exonerates them or that there was some serious problem with the trial that got them locked up in the first place - the prosecutor withheld evidence or their lawyer was incompetent, for example. At that point, the appellate court reviews the trial records and determines whether or not the conviction was legally sound.

(That process can take years, which is why virtually everyone on death row appeals - it buys them time. It also costs the taxpayer a LOT of money.)

If the court decides in the petitioner's favor, does he get to go free?

No.

They'll either commute his sentence - usually to life in prison without the possibility of parole - or give him a retrial. The latter doesn't happen often.

If he does get a retrial AND he proves his innocence to the jury, he is released.

Not exactly a cakewalk.

I agree, our wallets shouldn't be punished--and if it's cheaper in the long term and the short term, well, hey. Keep 'em locked up, whatever. No skin off my back.

However, I didn't know the math (I couldn't find it when I was looking). So, thank you!
That was my main concern.

Then what did you mean? They can only be "guaranteed" to kill again if they cannot stop themselves and there's no hope of changing their mentalities. Otherwise, it's like "guaranteeing" any other sort of criminal will commit that exact same crime again.

I believe you're confusing appeals and dismissals. Maybe. You say "get out" like they've already been convicted and put in prison. If you meant during/right after a trial, both are rarely successful, so if someone's appeal is successful, and/or the charges are dismissed, the person is almost certainly innocent. If you mean things like the Innocence Project, a convicted criminal must prove that he could not have committed the crime in order to be released. In some states, they must find the actual culprit before the person can be released, even if they admit that he's completely innocent. So again, very, very little chance of a murderer being set free.

(EDIT: Orrr, you could just read Doomfishy's post, which I somehow completely skipped over.)

Please prove this statement. I wouldn't normally ask this, but that's a heck of a leap to make. Further, why does it matter? If the death penalty directly causes more murders, which is something, you'll note, I disagreed with, then isn't that an excellent reason to get rid of it? Unless, of course, you care more about proving a point than actually preventing people from dying.

You're really confusing me with this bit.

First, yes, I can think that a murderer will only ever commit murder once (or several murders at once; think home invasions, robberies, etc.), because that's usually the case. Serial murderers are relatively rare, they just get far more press. Second, you're not cutting "the root of evil". There are patterns to murder. It is a societal problem, not an individual one. Understanding what causes it and what can be done to prevent it will save thousands of lives. Killing a single murderer might save one or two, provided he was actually going to kill anyone ever again, which is, as I mentioned before, a big if. I don't understand your reasoning if you're seriously suggesting that we continue doing what doesn't work in order to save a fraction of the lives we could save if we tried to find something that did.

Ok whoa there. I'm not suggesting anything, I'm against death penalty. I feel you've been attacking me a bit, as if I honestly believe this side of the discussion. All I've been doing was proving to you that not all arguments pro-death are based on revenge, as you have stated previously. Heck I'm not trying all that hard, as this was mostly exercising my debating muscles.

I've tried to find this anywhere online, and no luck. I have, however, heard this from a few psychologists (television, conferences, all that forensic-related stuff), which is obviously why I dared state it. If I ever find it online in english I'll be sure to link it, of course.

And Doomfishy, that post helped a ton, thanks. (:

Actually, no, I didn't state it.

All that you've presented is logical fallacies. As such, it doesn't in any way change my experiences with this issue. And I haven't attacked you. I have asked you to back up what you say. If you really are simply attempting to play "devil's advocate", you're doing it in a way that makes the other side look bad.

I am aware that people get a thrill from doing things that are forbidden and/or carry a potential punishment. That is not what you said -- your claim was that it is a part of the reason places with the death penalty have higher murder rates, potentially the only reason. You're free to consider that a possibility, but if you're going to state it as matter-of-factly as you did, you need evidence to support your claim. I could just as easily claim that it's because the death penalty being sanctioned by the government, and all the defenders who demand absolute proof the death penalty is not just ineffective but bad while people, some of them innocent, continue to die, shows people who are already predisposed to violence that killing one another is not a big deal. But I'd be talking out my ass if I did so.

besides all the numerous logistical reasons why the death penalty makes no sense, I also disagree with strongly on the grounds that States are illegitimate and should be given as little power as possible, ideally none. Giving the State the power to kill people puts it above the law. It also strengthens the State's monopoly on violence. Giving the State control over the strongest power structure encourages and enables oppressive regimes. The bureaucratic and abstract nature of the state also creates an atmosphere of lower feelings of responsibility and accountability among the individuals that belong to it, thus allowing injustices to happen more often and more seriously.

I don't think the death penalty is completely ethical. People dying from lethal injection is awful. I guess it could be worse, since people used to get hanged ( this is correct. When it is an action where they are being killed, it is called hanged.) and lynched in a vigilante society. That was completely awful. The reason I say it is unethical is because you never really know how well that injection works. It's supposed to make it so that they don't experience pain. The drug would prohibit them from expressing that pain though, since it paralyzes them.
I do think that it is ridiculously funny how states have been hoarding their supplies of the lethal injection drug ever since that one person who made it stopped. They're prolonging the inmates sentences and getting sued for a laughable reason all because they want to make sure that they way they're killing these people is humane, but the most ridiculous part is that the inmates are actually able to sue, FROM INSIDE THE PRISON, and get money for themselves, even if they're going to die, because they think that their death will be inhumane.
Actually, now that i think about it, the person who stated back making that drug would make a killing. Hmmmm... I'm just kidding, though. I can't make it because i'm only fifteen, and I couldn't endanger my life by mixing the wrong chemicals.

People do the Darnedest Things!!



Yo no pienso que la pena de muerte es completamente ética. Las personas que mueren de la inyección mortal son atroces. Adivino que podría ser peor, desde que personas fueron colgadas (esto es correcto. Cuando es una acción donde son matados, es llamado colgó). y linchó en una sociedad de vigilante. Eso fue completamente atroz. La razón que digo es poco ético es porque usted nunca sabe realmente cuán bien que inyección trabaja. Ha supuesto hacerlo para que ellos no experimenten dolor. La droga los prohibiría de expresar ese dolor aunque, desde que los paraliza. Pienso que es absurdamente gracioso cómo los estados han estado acumulando sus suministros de la droga mortal de inyección desde entonces ése persona que hizo paró. Prolongan las oraciones de presos y para ser demandado para una razón irrisoria todo porque quieren asegurarse de que ellos manera ellos matan a estas personas son humano, pero la parte más ridícula es que los presos pueden realmente demandar, DE DENTRO DE LA PRISION, y conseguir dinero para sí mismos, incluso si se morirán, porque piensan que su muerte será inhumana. Realmente, ahora que pienso de ello, la persona que indicó haciendo atrás esa droga haría el agosto. Hmmmm... Acabo de bromear, aunque. Yo no lo puedo hacer porque soy sólo quince, y yo no podrían ponerse en peligro mi vida mezcladndo las sustancias químicas equivocadas.

¡Las personas hacen las Cosas más Malditas!!