|
On September 22 2011 13:02 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:35 Naio wrote:On September 22 2011 12:24 MilesTeg wrote:
I see people saying it's not about death penalty in general, it's wrong.
The basic problem with the death penalty is that you put so much faith in the justice system that you give them the power to take human lives. Justice is made by humans, so inevitably sometimes it screws up, and things like this are bound to happen.
Institutions just shouldn't be allowed to decide that someone should die. Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post). Until that day that we as a species think of the whole rather than as an individual, we absolutely must allow the state to make those types of decisions, despite the fact that there is a margin of error (and lets be honest, it is a rather acceptable margin for error). On this point, society should be designing a system that provides incentives to minimise prosecutor misconduct and miscarriages of justice. That the US largely affords immunity from prosecutor misconduct to prosecutors removes the negative consequences of convicting innocents and de-incentivises efforts to ascertain the innocence of the accused on the part of prosecutors. That the US largely immunises the government and judges from liability of wrongful convictions also removes incentives to pursue of truth in the courts. The legal effective immunity of liability of judges does a great disservice to the pursuit justice and tilts the playing field inordinately towards both convictions and wrongful convictions.
I agree with you here, there needs to be some accountability for the actions taken by judges and prosecutors of innocent people, although once legal representatives can be responsible for possible misconduct in a case you'd end up with a lawsuit in just about every case where someone is put on death row or gets life. I suppose the system can be altered where a third party does the investigation of the prosecutor and judge for the case and determine if there was misconduct, but that would require a judiciary internal affairs branch to be created.
|
On September 22 2011 13:17 keiraknightlee wrote:
It's actually really simple. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was let off the hook despite strong evidence...
Black man gets hammered by the full extent of the law, while the white damsel in distress is let free...
That's America for you...
Good points. Uzbekistan is a paragon of justice and due process.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 22 2011 12:35 Naio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:24 MilesTeg wrote:
I see people saying it's not about death penalty in general, it's wrong.
The basic problem with the death penalty is that you put so much faith in the justice system that you give them the power to take human lives. Justice is made by humans, so inevitably sometimes it screws up, and things like this are bound to happen.
Institutions just shouldn't be allowed to decide that someone should die. Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post). Until that day that we as a species think of the whole rather than as an individual, we absolutely must allow the state to make those types of decisions, despite the fact that there is a margin of error (and lets be honest, it is a rather acceptable margin for error).
You don't need to go around killing people to put the fear of the justice system in people. Imprisonment allows for an opportunity to correct those kinds of mistakes and give an innocent person a chance to rebuild. The death penalty does not.
There's no evidence to show that the death penalty is been even the slightest bit effective in reducing the murder rate in the US. If one is in the frame of mind of ending the life of another human being, the absolute last thing you'd be worried about at that point is punishment for that crime. Whether it was done in the heat of the moment, or calculated. Exercising the death penalty after the fact does not bring the murdered individual back.
It even costs the taxpayer more money to put somebody through death row than to detain them, with full room and board, for literally the rest of their natural born life. The fiscal argument doesn't work in it's defense, either.
|
On September 22 2011 13:08 Caelyn0101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 10:50 Haemonculus wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. It's less about the death penalty in general, and more that we're likely about to execute an innocent man. It's possible he is guilty, but there was never any physical evidence, and he was convicted based on eye witness accounts, whom I believe have *all* since recanted their testimony. This argument holds no value at all, you could use the same logic to say that people shouldnt drive becasue innocent children could be run down in an accident, You can't say that the death penalty is a bad idea and a broken system because they MIGHT make a mistake. Like anything mistakes can happen and the consequences can be fatal, but that's no reason in my opinion to say that its a bad system.
It is a bad system because these "accidents" can be avoided with no cost.
But anyway it's a bad analogy and a syllogism... You're comparing an accident with the conscious decision to end or not end someone's life.
|
On September 22 2011 13:17 keiraknightlee wrote:
It's actually really simple. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was let off the hook despite strong evidence...
Black man gets hammered by the full extent of the law, while the white damsel in distress is let free...
That's America for you...
Actually the Casey Anthony case was extremely weak on evidence nothing was incriminating. It was all based off of circumstantial evidence. It's why the jury had to let her off.
|
I'm not particularly convinced he's innocent, but I think they should be a bit more willing to at least stay an execution in light of new evidence.
The guy isn't exactly a saint, he has prior convictions involving violent crimes and such, doesn't he?
|
On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance.
Edit: And to be case specific, any time it's not crystal clear beyond all doubts ever, the death penalty instantly becomes problematic. If you are to use the death penalty you better be damned sure you don't accidentally kill someone innocent. In this particular case a commute to life in prison would seem like the obvious choice.
The death penalty has nothing to do with vengeance. The death penalty is about removing people from earth that just shouldn't be here - primarily, those that commit horrible atrocities against other human beings.
|
On September 22 2011 13:12 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:35 Naio wrote:On September 22 2011 12:24 MilesTeg wrote:
I see people saying it's not about death penalty in general, it's wrong.
The basic problem with the death penalty is that you put so much faith in the justice system that you give them the power to take human lives. Justice is made by humans, so inevitably sometimes it screws up, and things like this are bound to happen.
Institutions just shouldn't be allowed to decide that someone should die. Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post). Until that day that we as a species think of the whole rather than as an individual, we absolutely must allow the state to make those types of decisions, despite the fact that there is a margin of error (and lets be honest, it is a rather acceptable margin for error). The difference is that it's somewhat harder to correct your mistake after you killed someone. I actually like your choice of words, "we absolutely must". Do you think it's absolutely necessary to kill people who do wrong? Don't you think the threat of imprisonnement is enough? Most civilized countries don't have the death penalty anymore, and as far as I can tell it's not complete chaos. There really is no reason to have the death penalty in the first place. All it does is create tensions and unnecessary violence.
Not necessarily with regards to the death penalty but rather for giving the state the necessary power to be allowed to pass judgment upon another human being. Without allowing for the state to make decisions that will affect people's lives the judicial system would probably collapse.
You are right, most 1st world nations have abolished the death penalty and I think the reason it is still in the USA is on principle alone. In all honesty, I really can care less if a child molester or rapist is put to death (in fact I'd prefer it), however it is currently far more cost efficient to keep them in jail for life over executing them, so the choice for what should be done in America is obvious.
|
On September 22 2011 13:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance.
Edit: And to be case specific, any time it's not crystal clear beyond all doubts ever, the death penalty instantly becomes problematic. If you are to use the death penalty you better be damned sure you don't accidentally kill someone innocent. In this particular case a commute to life in prison would seem like the obvious choice. The death penalty has nothing to do with vengeance. The death penalty is about removing people from earth that just shouldn't be here - primarily, those that commit horrible atrocities against other human beings.
Sort of like this. I believe the primary benefit of the death penalty has nothing to do with bringing relief back to the grieved ones, but rather, eliminate the possibility of a murderer committing the same atrocity to society again.
Is it useful as a deterrence? It probably is, to some effect, however minimal it is. People in general do think about the consequences.
|
I actually do not support the death penalty.
However, I do understand the reasoning behind the death penalty, and I think there's some stuff that people are missing about the death penalty. A government instates the death penalty to deter heinous crimes. Someone, knowing that there is a death penalty, commits a heinous crime. It's not about whether or not we want him to die. He condemned himself. We have no choice over the matter. It's like Team Liquid banning people for martyring. We can't not kill (or ban) him.
The crucial point of debate is whether or not the death penalty actually deters crime. I've been led to believe, through research conducted by one of my professors and various other sources, that it doesn't, but obviously it's very difficult to conclusively say one way or the other.
I'm also against killing people. I don't think anyone deserves to be killed. But the death penalty is not about killing people. It's about deterring crime. Theoretically, we can have the death penalty but never have to execute anyone.
About wrongful convictions: that really has nothing to do with the death penalty. It concerns the entire judicial system equally. The fact that you think a wrongful conviction resulting in death is a more grave mistake than a wrongful conviction resulting in life imprisonment doesn't mean it really is.
That might seem counterintuitive, (because obviously getting executed seems worse than living) but I would say both mistakes are equally grave and should be avoided at all costs. For example, if I had to rate the undesirability of each mistake, I would rate them both at the maximum value. And as a result, they would be equally undesirable.
|
It's actually far cheaper to leave criminals in prison for life than it is to execute them, when the cost of all the overhead that comes with a capital punishment program is considered. Without even considering the moral arguments, I'd support elimination of the death penalty for financial reasons alone.
|
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
they already ruined his life, might as well just put him out of his misery at this point. awful case in general that has gone on for twice as long as it should have
|
I don't support the death penalty for a few reasons.
1. It is economically inefficient. It's already been said, but keeping an inmate on death row is more expensive than keeping an inmate in prison.
2. Racial bias. I'm not basing that on this case alone, but on large collections of data that show a black man is more likely to get the death penalty than a white man for the same crime. That just doesn't sit well with me.
3. Ineffective. States that actively use the death penalty have no less heinous murders (what the death penalty is meant to be used for) than States that don't use the death penalty.
|
On September 22 2011 13:37 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 13:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance.
Edit: And to be case specific, any time it's not crystal clear beyond all doubts ever, the death penalty instantly becomes problematic. If you are to use the death penalty you better be damned sure you don't accidentally kill someone innocent. In this particular case a commute to life in prison would seem like the obvious choice. The death penalty has nothing to do with vengeance. The death penalty is about removing people from earth that just shouldn't be here - primarily, those that commit horrible atrocities against other human beings. Sort of like this. I believe the primary benefit of the death penalty has nothing to do with bringing relief back to the grieved ones, but rather, eliminate the possibility of a murderer committing the same atrocity to society again. Is it useful as a deterrence? It probably is, to some effect, however minimal it is. People in general do think about the consequences.
I don't know what drives a person to kill another person, but I think in those cases, (an in most cases where people would argue the death penalty warrented) the offender is not concerned with the consequences. I'd actually argue that the death penalty is less discouraging than life in prison.
|
It just comes down to the question of whether people are willing to possibly execute a few innocent people in order to execute many more guilty people. I'm not sure who I saw say it but in my opinion "rehabilitation" is useless. Maybe not useless, but it is a well known fact that many people who are convicted of crimes end up back in jail for one reason or another. American prisons are overcrowded as they are. No reason to keep somebody locked up inside of them when they have no chance of ever getting out anyway. Also, I'm tired of hearing people pull the race card every time a minority is involved in some sort of criminal case. If it was a white person in the same situation i don't think this thread would be going anywhere fast.
|
On September 22 2011 13:39 Enervate wrote:
I actually do not support the death penalty.
However, I do understand the reasoning behind the death penalty, and I think there's some stuff that people are missing about the death penalty. A government instates the death penalty to deter heinous crimes. Someone, knowing that there is a death penalty, commits a heinous crime. It's not about whether or not we want him to die. He condemned himself. We have no choice over the matter. It's like Team Liquid banning people for martyring. We can't not kill (or ban) him.
The crucial point of debate is whether or not the death penalty actually deters crime. I've been led to believe, through research conducted by one of my professors and various other sources, that it doesn't, but obviously it's very difficult to conclusively say one way or the other.
I'm also against killing people. I don't think anyone deserves to be killed. But the death penalty is not about killing people. It's about deterring crime. Theoretically, we can have the death penalty but never have to execute anyone.
About wrongful convictions: that really has nothing to do with the death penalty. It concerns the entire judicial system equally. The fact that you think a wrongful conviction resulting in death is a more grave mistake than a wrongful conviction resulting in life imprisonment doesn't mean it really is.
That might seem counterintuitive, (because obviously getting executed seems worse than living) but I would say both mistakes are equally grave and should be avoided at all costs. For example, if I had to rate the undesirability of each mistake, I would rate them both at the maximum value. And as a result, they would be equally undesirable.
I've studied the arguments and written papers about it, and I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty. As you noted, it doesn't deter crime, and the data is out there to support that claim not only for U.S. states but other countries as well. Norway is a great example, with very low crime and a very lenient justice system (another thread said the maximum sentence there is 21 years?). Wrongful convictions are also very important when talking about the death penalty. You can overturn a conviction after decades when new evidence comes to light, but you can't un-kill somebody. The first time you kill an innocent person should be the last time you ever use the death penalty. You seem to be talking about cases where the prisoner is guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt, which doesn't change my argument but the case of Troy Davis is a very different one. The case is nowhere near iron-clad, and with all but two witnesses recanting and no direct physical evidence, you can't kill a man with such little certainty. That is what is so revolting to me, there is plenty of doubt to at least hold off the execution and properly investigate.
Other than the built-in human passion for retribution, which is not justice, I don't see a credible normative argument for the death penalty. I hope this story doesn't go away; Troy Davis should be the poster boy for everything that is wrong about the death penalty.
|
When all of the evidence that convicted him has been proven to be false, then he shouldn't have been killed. But, it's to late now, I hope one day there can be a retrial in his name. RIP Troy Davis, even if you were guilty, by legal standards you should have gotten a retrial.
|
“It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.” ~ Voltaire
Pretty much sums up my views on the entire subject and hope that this starts a fight to end capital punishment here in the U.S.
|
This is just my personal opinion, but there are people that should get electrified/syringe, but most of these death penalties that has been brought up nowadays doesn't fit atleast for my standards.
|
The death penalty already exists, it's called a life sentence. They just make sure the criminal suffers a lot before he dies (at the tax payers expense).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
