For or Against Death Penalty for Murder

[Nitrus]

Are you for or against the death penalty being given for murder?? As far as this poll is concerned you are either for or against, not depending on any circumstances.

Let the voting begin.

[Nathan Brazil]

Sure, kill 'em, and do it quick. No reason for twenty years of appeals for this nonsense. The victim's family deserves closure.

As it stands, most death rows are geriatric wards.

[rodeojones903]

100% for it. We need to speed the process up.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Serves no role in preventing crime. Exonerations average 10 years, and they don't always have that time, and many are denied things such as DNA tests. It's retaliatory, that shouldn't be the role of the government.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But death is to good for some murderers.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[bobbylien]

Do these people deserve it? Of course. I voted yes, but I don't support the death penalty in our current justice system. The death penalty should only be applied in cases where the criminal has been found absolutely guilty without a single doubt. Its not worth the risk of killing someone for something he/she didnt do. At least with a life in prison sentence they can appeal if new evidence is introduced.

[Nathan Brazil]

It serves no role in detering crime because it takes 25 years from the conviction to perform the execution. If that was a puppy we were trying to housebreak, it'd be dead before it learned what the paper is for. No wonder capital punishment doesn't deter anything.

Pretty boy Scott Peterson would be the darling of the cell block, but the morons on the jury sentenced him to death. So now he's got taxpayer funded lawyers filing all sorts of bs appeals to keep the needle out of his arm, and he's got his own comfy cell and plenty of solititary time to keep Bubba's weiner out of his butt.

All because bleeding hearts delay the execution of sentence to ridiculous lengths.

Once a person is sentenced to the death penalty he should be interrogated under drugs and polygraph to determine exactly what he really did, and if, as is usually the case, the conviction is upheld by the convict, there's no reason for lengthy appeals. We can be rid of them in a month.

There won't be any of this constitutional blah-blah about self-incrimination, he's already been convicted and sentenced. The test will be to provide the wrongly charged person an escape.

[mdickinson]

I voted No, but I would support it any day in cases when there is absolutely no doubt. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't good enough for me. Unfortunately, this is a very rare circumstance.

[Mayberry]

Once a person is sentenced to the death penalty he should be interrogated under drugs and polygraph A truly excellent idea! What's the guy got to loose (besides his umpteenth appeal)? Then they can do the guy in a lot sooner and save taxpayers oodles of cash. I say one .22 slug between the eyes, much cheaper than all this chemical injection crap. If they need a volunteer for the firing squad, I'm available. We Texans are like that.:D

[AlonzoMourning23]

Mayberry, truth drugs are unreliable and polygraph techniques have significant problems. Both are considered highly questionable by the pscyhological community.

Also, courts have ruled that truth drugs can't be used as evidence since, even if accurate, since the person is essentially forced to be a witness against themselves.

[Mayberry]

the person is essentially forced to be a witness against themselves. It's all said and done. The guy is convicted and sentenced to die. What's the harm? O.K., make it voluntary. I'd do it if I was wrongly convicted. By the way, the Coastal Conservation Association administers a polygraph to anyone who presents a tagged redfish for the STAR Tournament, as legal proof of them actually catching the fish.

[AlonzoMourning23]

It doesn't get to the bottom of it, it is not accurate enough and would guarantee innocents were not executed. Some guilty people who be shown as innocent, and some innocent people as guilty. It is not fully backed by the psychological community and the lack of accuracy has prevented it from being used as evidence.

Though I really don't know what a fishing tournament has to do with this.

[Mayberry]

It was just an example of a polygraph being used for legal purposes.

[kanyon40]

Two important points on this issue:

1. Many capital crimes indeed have witnesses and evidence that is far beyond the reasonable doubt. But the accuracy gets called into question because we bring in doctors to tell us how the person was feeling when the did the crime. If they were having a bad day, their inner child was bruised, or their parents didn't let them have a nintendo when they were a child, that becomes an excuse for their violent acts. Also, we have people discredit the nun of 40 years who witnessed the 10 people being gunned down as having some sort of agenda in seeing an innocent man or woman executed. Many cases are open and shut. Many defendents plead guilty. Is there any question that the Beltway Snipers from a few years ago were guilty?

I am all for not executing innocent people. But the reality is that most people on death row die of old age. Most states that have the death penalty haven't executed a single person in over 10 years. And there are more people that we know are guilty than what we give credit for.

2. Capital punishment isn't a deterent. It is a punishment, as it states directly in the name. I tell my daughter every day to stop doing the same thing. Each time she breaks the rule, I punish her. Whether it deters her or not, she has earned for herself a punishment. And she doesn't get a lawyer to make excuses for her actions either.

Actually, captial punishment is a deterent. If you execute someone for a crime or crimes they have committed, you are guaranteeing that they don't commit any more. They have been deterred from a future life of crime (something that imprisonment rarely does, as most prisons are full of the same crime that the outside world has).

[Delegation]

I agree with Kanyon40 that the death penalty is needed in Ameirca becuase if we were to just throw someone in prison for 20-30 years there is a chance that when they are realeased they may just commit more crimes. Therefore we need the death penalty no matter how inhumane it may seem

[Buck Laser]

What I don't understand is why so many people think the US has to have it, when most of the rest of the world gets along perfectly well without it. Of course, they still have it China and Saudi Arabia.

[micfranklin]

If it does society any good, then I'm all for it.

[NortheastCynic]

Against. The harm that comes from killing innocent people outweighs the alleged good of executing terrible people.

-NC

[micfranklin]

Against. The harm that comes from killing innocent people outweighs the alleged good of executing terrible people.

-NC


Good point. But then if terrible, merciless are executed then there's no chance they can harm kill other innocent people.

[piratemonkey]

Good point. But then if terrible, merciless are executed then there's no chance they can harm kill other innocent people.
If they're locked up for the rest of their natural lives, there's no chance they can harm/kill othe innocent people either.


By the way, the Coastal Conservation Association administers a polygraph to anyone who presents a tagged redfish for the STAR Tournament, as legal proof of them actually catching the fish.


Is this an argument for the veracity of polygraph tests?

Polygraph testing is psuedo-science at its worst:

In 2002, a panel from the National Academy of Sciences were charged with "conduct[ing] a scientific review of the research on polygraph examinations that pertains to their validity and reliability, in particular for peronnel secutiry screening." The panel's findings were compiled into the report, "The Polygraph and Lie Detection," and presented to Congress and the Department of Energy.Â*Â*The panel found polygraph testing to be unscientific because it lacked fixed standards.Â*Â*After reviewing the available data and studies on polygraph testing, the panel concluded: "Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy."Â*Â*Further, there was little hope for advancing polygraph testing.Â*Â*According to the panel's findings: "The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy."

[micfranklin]

If they're locked up for the rest of their natural lives, there's no chance they can harm/kill the innocent people either.

Not quite. There's a change that said criminal could break out of prison and resume killing innocents.

[NortheastCynic]

Yes, there is...But the chance is significantly better that an innocent person is executed than a guilty person breaking out of jail and continuing to kill people.

-NC

[AlonzoMourning23]

Two important points on this issue:

1.Â*Â*Many capital crimes indeed have witnesses and evidence that is far beyond the reasonable doubt.Â*Â*But the accuracy gets called into question because we bring in doctors to tell us how the person was feeling when the did the crime.Â*Â*If they were having a bad day, their inner child was bruised, or their parents didn't let them have a nintendo when they were a child, that becomes an excuse for their violent acts.Â*Â*Also, we have people discredit the nun of 40 years who witnessed the 10 people being gunned down as having some sort of agenda in seeing an innocent man or woman executed.Â*

Oneof the main problems we have with the justice system is the overreliance on witness testimony. The human mind does not remember experiences exactly. There are even cases of rape victims, people who directly saw their attackers face for a decent period of time, accusing the wrong person and being absolutely certain they chose the right one. This becomes even more problematic if time has elapsed.

Sometimes the error is due to the police validating an uncertain or wrong opinion, sometimes an inept psychologist. Sometimes it's just the persons memory. But the person being honest or not doesn't mean they're correct.

Â*Many cases are open and shut.Â*Â*Many defendents plead guilty.Â*Â*Is there any question that the Beltway Snipers from a few years ago were guilty?

Pleading guity isn't perfect, some innocent people have done so thinking it would get them a lighter sentence, and it's worse when they have incompetent lawyers.


2.Â*Â*Capital punishment isn't a deterent.Â*Â*It is a punishment, as it states directly in the name.Â*Â*I tell my daughter every day to stop doing the same thing.Â*Â*Each time she breaks the rule, I punish her.Â*Â*Whether it deters her or not, she has earned for herself a punishment.Â*Â*And she doesn't get a lawyer to make excuses for her actions either.Â*Â*

Actually, captial punishment is a deterent.Â*Â*If you execute someone for a crime or crimes they have committed, you are guaranteeing that they don't commit any more.Â*Â*They have been deterred from a future life of crime (something that imprisonment rarely does, as most prisons are full of the same crime that the outside world has).


There's no reason to risk executing an innocent person just to ensure that you punish someone to the highest degree.

[firefox]

I agree, zo. Justice should be about restitution and problem solving, not about revenge.

[wilsonbd]

This speaks to the punishment for the crime, not the process of gaining a conviction. That is a topic for a different discussion.

An eye for an eye. Let the judgement and compassion come from their God. Those who kill should die by the very method they killed.

What this means...
If you shoot someone, you should die by firing squad.
If you stab someone, you should be impaled.
If you steal and commit a murder (by any method) during its commission, you should have your hands amputated and left to bleed to death.
If you murder a pregnant woman, you should be disemboweled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disembowelment) and left to die.
If you strangle someone, you should be hung.

I think you get the point.

If you think these punishments are cruel or unusual, so be it. There would be very few willing to commit crimes if they 'understand' exactly what was waiting for them.

The current system is not punitive. 'Doing time' is just that - passing time. It isn't punishment in the true sense. Prison should not be a law library, workout facilities, air conditioning, and the others. It is suppose to be punitive meaning you suffer for the crime you committed.

[lawless168]

I'm 100% for it, BUT I feel you need absolute proof you have the correct murder, otherwise I say just jail time.

DNA is our friend

[NortheastCynic]

How do you define "absolute proof", Lawless? DNA evidence has its flaws, so I'm guessing that is not the only qualification you have for "absolute proof", am I right?

-NC

[Tyler7940]

See.... I think that if you're given a fair trial and you're found guilty you should be killed. But, none of this lethal injection bullcrap. You should be taken out in the woods, hung, and then shot in the head. That would deliver a message to all the would-be criminals. Hell, We should even bring back public executions. For example, The Tookie Williams execution. Had we broadcast that over television and had we hung and shot him, anybody who was thinking about gang-banging would see that and think "Nah, It's not worth it."

[JohnnyAwake]

Against. It's immoral to take someones life. Retributive justice doesn't (as proven statistically) reinforce law and order. It is arbitrarily administered as well. Does the connotation of retaliation and revenge substantiate reasoning to commit any murder? One should really consider that there is something wrong with taking pleasure in another person’s death, regardless of whether they’re named JonBenét or Timothy McVeigh.


"What says the law? You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing!"
-Victor Hugo, author of Les Miserables

[I Like Beer]

I'm against it. It's all about feeding a blood lust for revenge and it does nothing to deter crime.

[davo]

I'm for the death penalty (although it's not currently legal in Australia). I don't believe it to be any more or less of a deterrent to crime than life imprisonment but I believe it's more humane than life imprisonment and certainly much cheaper.

In Australia we've had cases recently where cold-blooded murderers have been paroled after serving under 10 years in prison. This not only sends the wrong message to the crooks but is a disgrace for any sense of justice to the victim's family and society as a whole. The reasons for this are primarily economic - crooks get softer jail time because the government can't afford to keep them locked up. There's also the issue of decadent and politically correct social views regarding law and order but that's not as significant as the economic issues involved (and perhaps a direct result of them).

If people who commit capital crimes get capital punishment, that means more room in our jails to give out proper and just sentencing, and also more money in the taxpayer's pocket. It's probably a bit different in the United States. I've heard many a story about it being the other extreme there where people often get excessive jail time.

The main proviso I'd attach to re-introducing the death penalty here in Australia is it's to carry a higher burden of proof, and should be only used as an optional alternative for life imprisonment.

[cronic]

I'm against it.. :peace:
I don't feel its needed, as I don't see it as a justice.
In some cases it may be considered to good for someone the written law describes as being deserving of it also.

One could ask:
Almost a double standard wouldn't ya say when our laws and our commandments both say no killing.. yet.. when someone kills.. our laws kinda take a back seat to decided punishment and does what?

Kills

[Sublimating]

If 12 people can justify killing 1 person then 1 person can justify killing 12 people.

[Mia]

I can't agree with it due the the number of people sentenced to die who were found to be innocent. If there is proof positive, I can agree with it in many cases, but I would not say across the board for every person convicted of murder or any other crime.

[Mia]

Two important points on this issue:

1. Many capital crimes indeed have witnesses and evidence that is far beyond the reasonable doubt. But the accuracy gets called into question because we bring in doctors to tell us how the person was feeling when the did the crime. If they were having a bad day, their inner child was bruised, or their parents didn't let them have a nintendo when they were a child, that becomes an excuse for their violent acts. Also, we have people discredit the nun of 40 years who witnessed the 10 people being gunned down as having some sort of agenda in seeing an innocent man or woman executed. Many cases are open and shut. Many defendents plead guilty. Is there any question that the Beltway Snipers from a few years ago were guilty?

I am all for not executing innocent people. But the reality is that most people on death row die of old age. Most states that have the death penalty haven't executed a single person in over 10 years. And there are more people that we know are guilty than what we give credit for.

2. Capital punishment isn't a deterent. It is a punishment, as it states directly in the name. I tell my daughter every day to stop doing the same thing. Each time she breaks the rule, I punish her. Whether it deters her or not, she has earned for herself a punishment. And she doesn't get a lawyer to make excuses for her actions either.

Actually, captial punishment is a deterent. If you execute someone for a crime or crimes they have committed, you are guaranteeing that they don't commit any more. They have been deterred from a future life of crime (something that imprisonment rarely does, as most prisons are full of the same crime that the outside world has).

What good is punishment to anyone? If it doesn't rehabilitate or protect society, it useless. Keeping a dangerous person from harming others is useful, punishment for the sake of is not.

The punishment of your daughter seems to be fruitless unless it just warms your heart to be vindictive. Why not figure out something that actually affects a change in her behavior?

Also deterrent is meant as in the threat of it deters one form doing it, not carrying it out.

[ChingChangChewie]

I'm against it... death penalty is ok... but death penalty for murder does not work always... why? Because when your father was killed by a rich barbarian, and you took revenge and burned his whole family off... it's ok... he should be totally innocent and free from imprisonment... but if you raped and murdered some one else, then yes you should f-ing die... that's all!

[Mia]

Whaaaat?

[Deadshot]

The Death Penalty is SUPPOSED to be a deterant. It isn't. If you want the Death Penalty for murder, I would only accept it if you had irrefutable evidence. That would be video footage, MANY-MANY eye witnesses, or something in that vain. There are people getting off of Death Row as we speak because it has been proven, through DNA evidence and other evidence, that these men should have never been convicted.

So if you wanted to give the Death Penalty to the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech killer, had they not killed themselves, since we had video and numerous eye witnesses, I'd be good with that. But anyone else, and quite frankly - and I'm in Law Enforcement, I do not trust a jury to make that decision.

[brien]

Against...unless of course, the convicted murderer wanted to be executed, as did Michael Ross in CT

[Moorington]

Speed up the proccess, kill a couple innocent people- oh well, it's not like even the 'turns out they were innocent' people are anything I'm glad about not killing. Sorry to be like that, but we're losing so much money each year, and productivity, by having able-minded and bodied people, watching other able-minded and able-bodied people. Makes me wish we got more into the whole 'gulag' thing.

[davo]

I'm mostly for the death penalty, however it would depend on the specific circumstances. I also consider it more humane and taxpayer-friendly than life imprisonment without parole. The main concern I do have with the death penalty is its irreversible nature if someone is found to be wrongfully convicted.

However, alot of crooks here are paroled early because of the cost to the taxpayer, and because of the emotional weaknesses of elected (and unelected) officials. Isn't releasing dangerous crooks early for inadequate reasons is just as much a danger to the life of the innocent as an error in the application of capital punishment?

[apdst]

If they're locked up for the rest of their natural lives, there's no chance they can harm/kill the innocent people either.

As MicFranklin said, they can escape. Richard Lee McNair escaped from the federal penatentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. He was doing three life sentences. The Pollock pen is just under three miles from my parent's home.

Secondly, I don't want my tax dollars to be spent keeping these nutjobs in finger bowls and volleyball courts for the rest of their lives.

Justice should be about restitution and problem solving, not about revenge.

It's not about revenge. It's about public safety. 40% of convicted murderers, who are released, re-offend. What about the rights of the people they kill? I think the civil rights of the thousands of people who are murdered every year far outweigh the civil rights of all the criminals in the country.

[suralos]

A movie called "Pierrepoint, The Last Hangman" is the true story of England's last and most notable executioner and his career of executing many hundreds of people. He was a national hero for hanging dozens of Nazi war criminals after the Nuremberg trials, but he became very unpopular as Britain turned away from the death penalty in the 60's. Nevertheless, he clung steadfast to his justification for his career and his own personal conviction that he was delivering to heaven those who would otherwise be condemned to hell for their crimes. That position is straight out of the Old Testament.

I have never generally been in favor of the death penalty, but like all social sentiment that finds institution, the original intent becomes corrupted and recalcitrant so that now, for example, you have people whose jobs have resulted from having abolished the death penalty, and some of these people see themselves as part of a vibrant industry, taxpayer supported though it is. This begins to entertain the bizarre notion that the worst criminals have built a portion of the economy. I'm not going to suggest which sector of society that notion is coming from because my post will be removed.

[brien]

I am generally against the death penalty because of the falibility of the system in determining guilt. We see case after case of mistaken identity where people have served years of a sentence only to be found innocent of the crime after years of their lives have been robbed from them. Even one case of wrongful death upon behalf of the state is one too many.

We need another "Devil's Island", one like depicted in Papillion in the 1973 movie of the same name, where all convicted 1st & 2nd degree murderers are transferred to serve their sentence of life in a Federal prison, no parole.

http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0070511/

I am reasonably certain there are small islands that could be made available to serve this purpose.

[Muser]

I am generally against the death penalty because of the falibility of the system in determining guilt. We see case after case of mistaken identity where people have served years of a sentence only to be found innocent of the crime after years of their lives have been robbed from them. Even one case of wrongful death upon behalf of the state is one too many.

We need another "Devil's Island", one like depicted in Papillion in the 1973 movie of the same name, where all convicted 1st & 2nd degree murderers are transferred to serve their sentence of life in a Federal prison, no parole.

http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0070511/

I am reasonably certain there are small islands that could be made available to serve this purpose.

I'm in general agreement here...but for cases such as BTK, Richard Ramirez (aka Night Stalker), Gacy, etc., they should be made to die thoroughly and completely.

[PatrickHenry]

I think juries should have some say in this and that prosecutors should evaluate their evidence.

Most of the wrongfully convicted were railroaded.

Would a prosecutor railroad someone to their death?

That would be too cold.

[brien]

I think juries should have some say in this and that prosecutors should evaluate their evidence.

Most of the wrongfully convicted were railroaded.

Would a prosecutor railroad someone to their death?

That would be too cold.

In many state juries do decide the penalty phase of the hearing. It is the jury that decides the punishment according to the law, not the judge.

[lawless168]

How do you define "absolute proof", Lawless? DNA evidence has its flaws, so I'm guessing that is not the only qualification you have for "absolute proof", am I right?

-NC
When someone is arrested for murder, there is a trail of clues to get to the point of finding DNA. So having ONLY DNA, as your only evidence in a murder trial/case is highly unlikely. Watch the show "first 48" on A&E, that may answer a few questions you may have on how to solve a murder.

I’ll be tuning in tonight, they have back-to-back shows tonight…

[AlanC]

Too general a question to answer. Since you allow no qualifications of a far too broad question, I'll pass.

[Pookie]

Okay. In this scenario, if one takes away the other's freedom to live, shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?
As in the death penalty?
Think about it. You kill a person or commit a heinous crime resulting in the death of innocents, if you deprive another of the freedom to live, do you deserve to live?
There are other circumstances, but think about it.
Purrs,
Pookie

[lawless168]

The Death Penalty is SUPPOSED to be a deterant. It isn't. If you want the Death Penalty for murder, I would only accept it if you had irrefutable evidence. That would be video footage, MANY-MANY eye witnesses, or something in that vain. There are people getting off of Death Row as we speak because it has been proven, through DNA evidence and other evidence, that these men should have never been convicted.

So if you wanted to give the Death Penalty to the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech killer, had they not killed themselves, since we had video and numerous eye witnesses, I'd be good with that. But anyone else, and quite frankly - and I'm in Law Enforcement, I do not trust a jury to make that decision.

I've heard that argument about the death penalty being a "deterrent" before too. So aren’t probation, jail, and prison, and hefty fines ECT posta be a deterrent also then? But that’s not stopping people from committing crimes either. I guess I see things a bit different and see these as punishment and nothing more. Most people don’t think of the punishment for the crime they are about to commit till they are caught. I’m sure they never look up the states laws before committing the crime they are about to do, I think that’s just silly…

Yeah I’ve seen in the news too that people are being exonerated of there crime thanks to DNA and the “Innocence Project”. I wonder if Mr. “NortheastCynic” argument would still be that DNA still has flaws and shouldn’t be used?

[Elrathin]

I've never viewed the Death Penalty as a deterrent, I've looked at it as punishment.

[Rage]

I think that it should be circumstantial. Man kills wife for cheating on him, visa versa, that should not get the death penalty. Man kills other man for killing his son, that should not get the death penalty.

Man kills other man for...scuffing his shoes? What do you think?

[Burning Giraffe]

I don't think our government can be trusted with the right to kill us for any reason whatsoever.

[4Reaganomics]

A jury of our peers is making the call though,

not gov't

[ScareCrow]

A jury of our peers is making the call though,

not gov't

Would you honestly want a group of people who voted for Hillary Clinton to be the jury deciding your guilt or innocence? :blah:

[4Reaganomics]

It is not a situtation that I find ideal

I was simply laying it out there for discussion

I never said that people could be completely trusted either


My stance is that given our constitution, that capital punishment does not fall under the category of "cruel and unusual" for murder. Thus, in our federalist society it should remain up to the states whether or not they will keep the death penalty on the books.

I find it appropriate and feel that our judicial process gives people more than a fair shake with the amount of appeals available to them.

[Burning Giraffe]

A jury of our peers is making the call though,

not gov't

Yeah, but its my peers that have led to the government in question. :) I don't much trust them with my life and death either.

[4Reaganomics]

You are awarded an attorney at the cost of the state if you please , a jury of your peers that are partially selected by your legal team, and countless appeals, along with the ability of pardon.

I feel that there is suffice opportunity for an innocent man to evade wrongful execution, but it is seen as in the eye of the beholder.

There is no constitutional ban on it and the states should continue to decide whether or not to use it themselves regardless of our opinions on whether it is moral or not

that is my stance

[Charles V]

If one are willing to spend an ungodly amount of tax money [1] in order to execute a criminal (dead people cannot appeal their sentence), a practice that is internationally condemned [2] [3] and which seemingly places the US on par with Iran, China and Saudi Arabia [4], there must be an intrinsic benefit to society to impose capital punishment. There isn't.

[1] The High Cost of the Death Penalty (http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42)

[2] United Nations Resolution on Death Penalty Moratorium (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10678.doc.htm)

[3] EU Policy & Action on Death Penalty (http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/deathpenhome.htm)

[4] Death Penalty World Map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png/800px-Death_Penalty_World_Map.png)

[namguy]

I don't think our government can be trusted with the right to kill us for any reason whatsoever.

I don't trust our government at all, but that's beside the point you've brought up.

The 'killing' was done by the accusesd that was proven guilty by a jury, if that was the case. The 'execution' is the penality the law calls for in certain circumstances. I see more life without parole sentences handed down than death penalties, which in my opinion is alot worse than life without parole.

There are individuals in society that are cold, empty hearted, serial killers that should be executed, IMMEDIATELY.

A bit off the subject matter here, but how about the people that are aganist guns, handguns in particular. I'm going to quarterback this scenario the best I can...ok, now picture this; your in YOUR HOUSE, kicked back after a hard DAY OF WORK, not bothering a soul and some low life, no good thug, for the mere fact he's got nothing better to do, enters with intent to harm YOU AND YOUR FAMILY and he has a weapon, now here you set, unarmed, scared as all hell for you family as well as for yourself....WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? Call the cops, right, they 'might' show up after your remains is starting rigor mortis! Ugly isn't it? But it's not all that out of the realm of reason, especially today. There are people out here that will cut your throat because you looked at them in the wrong way...true. Now, let's turn this around; the thug breakes in your house and you present a gun, 99 times out of 100 he'll run like a scared rabbit...no harm no foul and you and yours LIVE to see another day. So he doesn't take off at the showing of your firearm, still comes at you, pull the trigger, simple. One well placed shot to the knee cap and that boy will wish he was dead.

Get the picture?

[G.B.]

There are over 200 cases where the "perpetrator" was "proven" guilty by a jury that have been exonerated after spending years in prison. A very large number of these were prisoners on death row. I used to be rabidly pro-DP. I've since changed my mind. Most of these cases were where an "eye witness" testified that the person being prosecuted was indeed the person who committed the crime.

[Mia]

I don't trust our government at all, but that's beside the point you've brought up.

The 'killing' was done by the accusesd that was proven guilty by a jury, if that was the case. The 'execution' is the penality the law calls for in certain circumstances. I see more life without parole sentences handed down than death penalties, which in my opinion is alot worse than life without parole.

There are individuals in society that are cold, empty hearted, serial killers that should be executed, IMMEDIATELY.

A bit off the subject matter here, but how about the people that are aganist guns, handguns in particular. I'm going to quarterback this scenario the best I can...ok, now picture this; your in YOUR HOUSE, kicked back after a hard DAY OF WORK, not bothering a soul and some low life, no good thug, for the mere fact he's got nothing better to do, enters with intent to harm YOU AND YOUR FAMILY and he has a weapon, now here you set, unarmed, scared as all hell for you family as well as for yourself....WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? Call the cops, right, they 'might' show up after your remains is starting rigor mortis! Ugly isn't it? But it's not all that out of the realm of reason, especially today. There are people out here that will cut your throat because you looked at them in the wrong way...true. Now, let's turn this around; the thug breakes in your house and you present a gun, 99 times out of 100 he'll run like a scared rabbit...no harm no foul and you and yours LIVE to see another day. So he doesn't take off at the showing of your firearm, still comes at you, pull the trigger, simple. One well placed shot to the knee cap and that boy will wish he was dead.

Get the picture?

Hm. I was taught not to draw unless I was going to shoot and not to shoot unless I was going to kill. Because drawing may just end up in my death, so may shooting in the knee, and that we don't want.

Also to have a dog and an alarm system so that hopefully thug doesn't have to meet gun, and I don't have to meet defending myself in court.

But I agree with you in general :thumbsup:

[Mia]

There are over 200 cases where the "perpetrator" was "proven" guilty by a jury that have been exonerated after spending years in prison. A very large number of these were prisoners on death row. I used to be rabidly pro-DP. I've since changed my mind. Most of these cases were where an "eye witness" testified that the person being prosecuted was indeed the person who committed the crime.

That was due to DNA evidence 'coming about' - it's a poor argument because now we use DNA to convict.

I agree with you in principle - rarely is the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' assured enough for a terminal result.

[namguy]

Hm. I was taught not to draw unless I was going to shoot and not to shoot unless I was going to kill. Because drawing may just end up in my death, so may shooting in the knee, and that we don't want.

Also to have a dog and an alarm system so that hopefully thug doesn't have to meet gun, and I don't have to meet defending myself in court.

But I agree with you in general :thumbsup:

Cool...

[namguy]

That was due to DNA evidence 'coming about' - it's a poor argument because now we use DNA to convict.

I agree with you in principle - rarely is the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' assured enough for a terminal result.

DNA, agreat tool, I agree.

[Burning Giraffe]

You are awarded an attorney at the cost of the state if you please , a jury of your peers that are partially selected by your legal team, and countless appeals, along with the ability of pardon.

I feel that there is suffice opportunity for an innocent man to evade wrongful execution, but it is seen as in the eye of the beholder.

There is no constitutional ban on it and the states should continue to decide whether or not to use it themselves regardless of our opinions on whether it is moral or not

that is my stance

I agree with your stance, I just disagree with your opinion. I am perfectly willing to stomach my state's decision on the matter and I do believe it should be left up to the discretion of my state. But I would seek a Constitutional Amendment defining under what conditions a jury of our peers could put us to death under the law.

[Rage]

I think that we should have the death penalty, but save it for really henious crimes. You may not think it but staying in prison until you die can be worse than death.

But, having the death penalty we should make people fear it. A true criminal is not afraid of death so we should make them. There are a lot of sick and twisted ways people could die that I can think of, but lets just say that.... the death penalty process should last a week or so, instead of the traditional 15 seconds it takes for the chair or the needle if you know what I mean.

Other countries look down at us, how we allow a lot of crime to happen. Lets let them look down on us no more in that subject, eh?

[namguy]

I think that we should have the death penalty, but save it for really henious crimes. You may not think it but staying in prison until you die can be worse than death.

But, having the death penalty we should make people fear it. A true criminal is not afraid of death so we should make them. There are a lot of sick and twisted ways people could die that I can think of, but lets just say that.... the death penalty process should last a week or so, instead of the traditional 15 seconds it takes for the chair or the needle if you know what I mean.

Other countries look down at us, how we allow a lot of crime to happen. Lets let them look down on us no more in that subject, eh?

Can't argue with that.

[Mia]

I can - where does rage get the idea that a 'true criminal' isn't afraid of death? What is a 'true criminal' anyway?

[namguy]

I can - where does rage get the idea that a 'true criminal' isn't afraid of death? What is a 'true criminal' anyway?

He's right, they're not scared of the death penality, it's been proven. Bush is a true criminal and responsible for thousands of murders, of course in the name of patroitotism.

[Rage]

Check out the criminals at pelican bay. Those are true criminals. And as for the above post thats your opinion, note it is not fact.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I am pro-death penalty under a JUST criminal justice system in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

I don't support the death penalty under our CURRENT corrupt bi-partisan justice system, or under our government which has become by the few, for the few, against the people.

[Mia]

That ideal doesn't exist, Os.

[Rage]

Thats up for the people to decide... But in a sense that still makes your statement true then, mia.

[namguy]

Check out the criminals at pelican bay. Those are true criminals. And as for the above post thats your opinion, note it is not fact.

They're more criminals not behind bars than are.

[Mia]

They're more criminals not behind bars than are.

true that.:thumbsup:

[4Reaganomics]

That is primarily because we have waged our resources on useless infringements on individual liberty with the war on drugs and other useless causes.

Meanwhile we have seen murder rates in inner-cities become brainsick.

The way we have policed our cities and country is appalling. There is a clear disturbance in the force. You would think we would rationally combat crime by preventing criminals from violating the rights of victims. Yet we fall into line with the same pattern of infringement upon liberty. We sell out liberty for security, and we don't even get the goddam security.

[Mia]

I thought you were for all that.

[4Reaganomics]

For all of what?

[cronic]

Against it \
But I said that already.
Just felt the need to express it again since the thread still seems to be alive

[Rage]

That is primarily because we have waged our resources on useless infringements on individual liberty with the war on drugs and other useless causes.

Meanwhile we have seen murder rates in inner-cities become brainsick.

The way we have policed our cities and country is appalling. There is a clear disturbance in the force. You would think we would rationally combat crime by preventing criminals from violating the rights of victims. Yet we fall into line with the same pattern of infringement upon liberty. We sell out liberty for security, and we don't even get the goddam security.

Legalize all drugs. That would drop the prison population by 50%. And if the state sells it, you can tax it. I know how democrats love those taxes. Tax tax tax.

[4Reaganomics]

I can't say that I agree with the taxation, but I can say that I agree with the legalization.

This is contingent upon the premise that we will have personal responsibility.

This means that we will not provide tax payer funded drug recovery or rehab programs of any sorts, nor should we prevent any type of tax payer funded assistance to those who make poor decisions themselves.

The best thing would be for government to get the hell out and get out completely

[Mia]

I can't say that I agree with the taxation, but I can say that I agree with the legalization.

This is contingent upon the premise that we will have personal responsibility.

This means that we will not provide tax payer funded drug recovery or rehab programs of any sorts, nor should we prevent any type of tax payer funded assistance to those who make poor decisions themselves.

The best thing would be for government to get the hell out and get out completely

What happens to all the drug addicts who commit crimes and disrupt life in general?

[4Reaganomics]

If they commit a crime that violates the rights of a victim they will go to prison or receive capital punishment for murder in applicable states if convicted by a jury of their peers.

[Mia]

And who pays for all that?

[4Reaganomics]

The tax payer pays for prisons under our current format, but I believe there is much progression that can be made with cost cutting that could make the system much more cost efficient.

There is no direct correlation between a legalization in drugs and increased violent crime, the common logic is that drug abusers are the criminals violating the rights of victims when the most violent criminals are those who are controlling drug distribution in a black market that shouldn't exist.

[cronic]

You all want your drugs legal and taxxed.. good for you.. I personally think its stupid as fuk./. but whatever..

I'll stick with the black market or growing.. I don't want my weed taxxed or controlled by the govt

[4Reaganomics]

I'm not advocating for gov't to run the industry and tax the product, I'm advocating gov't to leave the industry completely and let people engage in voluntary exchange

and infringement upon voluntary exchange is by definition unfair

[4Reaganomics]

I'm not advocating for gov't to run the industry and tax the product, I'm advocating gov't to leave the industry completely and let people engage in voluntary exchange

and infringement upon voluntary exchange is by definition unfair

[cronic]

I'm not advocating for gov't to run the industry and tax the product, I'm advocating gov't to leave the industry completely and let people engage in voluntary exchange

and infringement upon voluntary exchange is by definition unfair

There ya go.. I will agree with that...

I think its fair to say then..
We don't need to legalize it.
Just decriminalize it...:thumbsup:

[Mia]

I'm not advocating for gov't to run the industry and tax the product, I'm advocating gov't to leave the industry completely and let people engage in voluntary exchange

and infringement upon voluntary exchange is by definition unfair

voluntary exchange :madlaugh:

'Hey, lemme share my drugs with you'.:madlaugh:

No matter what they cost money and you will have addicts who can't afford it and do crimes in order to afford it. There is flat no way around that fact.

The mafia will still exist having people pimp themselves and sell drugs and engage in other crimes to support their habit and the 'voluntary exchange' 'industry'.

[Mia]

There ya go.. I will agree with that...

I think its fair to say then..
We don't need to legalize it.
Just decriminalize it...:thumbsup:

Fine, but whenever there is something of value, legal or not, it's going to be controlled by someone.

There are a few independent dealers, but gangs have this neat little trick. Violence. They will coerce dealers to 'voluntarily' work for THEM (or not at all).

It makes no difference if it's legal or not from that aspect.

If it were ever to be 'decriminalized', it would still be regulated. Like the legal 'controlled substances' we have now.

You'd have to go to your doc and get a script and pay big pharma their cut, and/or get it from the black market.

If someone can show me one valuable thing that someone hasn't figured out how to control and own, I'll reconsider my argument.

[Mia]

We're wayyyy off topic. I started a new thread on this: http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?p=207114#post207114