Death Penalty

[Squilly]

Are you for or against the death penalty? It's been abolished in many countries and the US is one of the only countries that still uses it. I'm highly against it. My argument:
The death penalty is extremely corrupt. If you murder someone, you get a lot of years in jail. If you murder the presidents son or something, you're sentenced to death. It's just another person related to an extremely high power. I'm against the idea of a president as well but that's for another thread. Jail vs death, same crime. What the **** is wrong with society?!

[prostuff1]

I am sure this topic has been discussed before... but I am to lazy to do a search right now.


As for my answer:
Not used enough

[skunk]

Against, in all cases.

[Peace]

An eye for an eye makes everyone blind.

[GermanyChris]

I'll pass on the death penalty thanks...

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by Squilly

Are you for or against the death penalty? It's been abolished in many countries and the US is one of the only countries that still uses it. I'm highly against it. My argument:
The death penalty is extremely corrupt. If you murder someone, you get a lot of years in jail. If you murder the presidents son or something, you're sentenced to death. It's just another person related to an extremely high power. I'm against the idea of a president as well but that's for another thread. Jail vs death, same crime. What the **** is wrong with society?!

I am against it. I lived in the South when the most convenient way to handle a murder investigation was to latch on to the most "likely" black, or, "white trash" suspect. We have all heard of the Innocence Project by now.

But, I can't bring myself to be an anti-death-penalty activist. Here's why:

The state Supreme Court denied a flurry of legal challenges Wednesday from convicted murderer Richard Allen Davis, who is on Death Row for the 1993 kidnapping and strangulation of 12-year-old Polly Klaas of Petaluma.

Davis raised more than a dozen claims he hoped would set him free, including that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial and was incapable of forming the required malice or premeditation.

Davis also filed claims stating he was subjected to improper law enforcement tactics such as sleep deprivation and nicotine withdrawal and was threatened by mental health workers.

The seven-member high court denied each of Davis' claims, but said he could renew one challenge after an execution date is set.

Davis, a career criminal, was convicted of abducting Klaas from a slumber party at her mother's house. Her murder led to the adoption of the state's three-strikes sentencing law.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...CLES/130129795

I would still prefer it if we didn't have a death penalty at all. But, since we do, I have to admit that in a case like this, it is difficult to see a better alternative.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

I would still prefer it if we didn't have a death penalty at all. But, since we do, I have to admit that in a case like this, it is difficult to see a better alternative.

What is "better" about adding to the body count?

[Scepticalscribe]

Against it always.

[iStudentUK]

Against it in all circumstances. Fortunately my country has been abolitionist for decades, it has no place in civilised society.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

Fortunately my country has been abolitionist for decades, it has no place in civilised society.

Unfortunately, our country has been unnaturally keen to carry out the death penalty in other countries.

[edk99]

100% for it and it should be used more.

In cases where you have witnesses and it is a 100% slam dunk like the Batman shooter James Holmes he should be on death row awaiting execution or should of been executed already. Also in other cases where there are no witness and 100% of the evidence without a reasonable doubt like DNA evidence and so on is 100% pointing to the killer should be sentenced to death.

I think todays technology is accurate enough to prevent innocent convictions and death penalty sentences that have made it through in the past and have been overturned due to analysis by newer technology.

Mental illness should not be a defense in a murder case. It is a oxymoron because you have to be mentally ill to kill someone in cold blood.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by edk99

100% for it and it should be used more.

In cases where you have witnesses and it is a 100% slam dunk like the Batman shooter James Holmes he should be on death row awaiting execution or should of been executed already. Also in other cases where there are no witness and 100% of the evidence without a reasonable doubt like DNA evidence and so on is 100% pointing to the killer should be sentenced to death.

**** yeah, due process is for girls.

I think todays technology is accurate enough to prevent innocent convictions.

Dream on.

Mental illness should not be a defense in a murder case. It is a oxymoron because you have to be mentally ill to kill someone in cold blood.

If you are mentally ill, you are as often as not unable to properly moderate your thoughts or actions. You are not responsible. But, if you think you have to be mentally ill to kill, you have not looked into your own nature.

[niuniu]

The law has to set the highest standards of humanity. Killing people is among the lowest. Incompatible in my view.

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by edk99

I think todays technology is accurate enough to prevent innocent convictions and death penalty sentences that have made it through in the past and have been overturned due to analysis by newer technology.

Mental illness should not be a defense in a murder case. It is a oxymoron because you have to be mentally ill to kill someone in cold blood.

Mental illness is not (in any developed jurisdiction I know of) a defence to murder, it's far not complex than that. The problem with these types of discussion is that non-lawyers (understandably) don't know much about the law, especially something as complex as murder.

Although I disagree that you have to be mentally ill to murder someone (I'll come back to why), that's not the test. The test is whether you are capable of forming the 'mens rea' (the mental element) - ie (in the UK for example) intent to kill or cause GBH. It's not just whether soemone is 'mental'.

Back to why you don't have to be mental ill to commit murder - it is a lot easier to murder someone than people think. In many jurisdictions there is no need to intend to kill - only cause serious harm. Can you imagine getting angry enough to punch someone in the face for example? I bet most people can. Say you did and the guy you punched had a medical condition that caused him to die whereas an 'average' person would not have - still murder in many countries. Don't think that is a mentally ill person?

Let's consider another defence to murder - self defence. There is always a line to draw about where self defence goes too far and becomes murder. That can't be established with 100% certainty, it's a matter of opinion for a jury.

The point that most non-lawyers don't get is you can have a case with CCTV footage, 100 eye witnesses and DNA, but that only proves the defendant killed someone - killing someone (you may be surprised to learn) is not illegal. It is merely an element of certain crimes (like murder).

Criminal law isn't even my area, I'm sure a criminal lawyer could add more. My point is, there is a reason why the public shouldn't get to decide complex moral issues - they don't have enough knowledge to make an informed decision.

[Happybunny]

Against, after seeing how many people are freed because of new DNA evidence, the death penalty can't be reversed.

[aerok]

I'm against it for one single reason, not all judgements are perfect. There is always that small change of giving the death penalty to a perfectly innocent person. If all judgement were 100% accurate, then I would be for the death penalty for extreme cases like mass murderers, serial killers and pedophiles that murder kids.

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Against, after seeing how many people are freed because of new DNA evidence, the death penalty can't be reversed.

New tech and of course..

you never know what on Earth is going on behind the scenes.

[Wardenski]

I'm against, because in no order:

1) It doesn't work
2) It creates martyrs
3) Always the possibility of an innocent dying

[Squilly]

Originally Posted by aerok

I'm against it for one single reason, not all judgements are perfect. There is always that small change of giving the death penalty to a perfectly innocent person. If all judgement were 100% accurate, then I would be for the death penalty for extreme cases like mass murderers, serial killers and pedophiles that murder kids.

Very true. Ever see Prison Break? It's based around that topic.

[mcrain]

Can anyone point to a single murder that was prevented by the fact that the death penalty exists.

Surety is a far more effective deterrant than severity.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by edk99

100% for it and it should be used more.

In cases where you have witnesses and it is a 100% slam dunk like the Batman shooter James Holmes he should be on death row awaiting execution or should of been executed already. Also in other cases where there are no witness and 100% of the evidence without a reasonable doubt like DNA evidence and so on is 100% pointing to the killer should be sentenced to death.

I think todays technology is accurate enough to prevent innocent convictions and death penalty sentences that have made it through in the past and have been overturned due to analysis by newer technology.

Mental illness should not be a defense in a murder case. It is a oxymoron because you have to be mentally ill to kill someone in cold blood.

You'll never fully overcome every problem tied to this. These cases are still investigated by people and tried by jury. The death penalty doesn't even solve a real problem. It doesn't bring anyone back or dissuade violent crime. What does it really solve? There is also no such thing as 100% certainty. I'm not even sure why you'd suggest that.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by Wardenski

I'm against, because in no order:

1) It doesn't work
2) It creates martyrs
3) Always the possibility of an innocent dying

And a fourth reason: when such convictions happen, they don't happen equally or fairly. The death penalty - when and where it exists - tends to be disproportionately imposed on a given society's have-nots.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

But, I can't bring myself to be an anti-death-penalty activist. Here's why ...

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Davis was denied "more than a dozen claims he hoped would set him free".

The seven-member high court would allow him to renew one challenge but only after an execution date was set.

What do you think his chances are of winning that challenge?

Do you think that convicted murderers should be denied any avenue for appeal?

[Orange Crane]

Pro death penalty, pro medical assisted end of life for anyone who requests it. Too few resources to waste on those who don't want or don't deserve to be here.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Orange Crane

Pro death penalty, pro medical assisted end of life for anyone who requests it. Too few resources to waste on those who don't want or don't deserve to be here.

Who makes that call