Capital Punishment

[Toast]

Hm... I'm neutral on this. If you think you can convince everyone who commits a serious crime that it was wrong and horrible and make them feel bad about it, you need to face reality. Lots of people know what they did was wrong, they just don't care. Their only regret is getting caught. However, sometimes people do "get better". There's also the problem of innocent people being convicted. So... I'd just say which ever is cheaper is the way to go.

[Hyper Sonic]

Just because you have the death penalty doesn't mean you have to use it

[Gidig]

Originally Posted by Jack

Not true. In the latest study only 2.5% of released rapists were found to have comitted another rape within three years and only 1.2% of released homicide offenders committed another homicide within three years of release.

You're good with sources- just thought I'd mention that.

I also feel like, these statistics may not be entirely relevant, on the fact that - as you've stated I believe, why were they released? There's a certain type of people who were released, people who probably won't do it again. If they're some serial killer/serial rapist, they're not going to be let out, hence why they're still in jail, without the ability to reoffend.

And you could argue that at least they're in jail, which is true. But how much different is that versus dead? You as a person are basically dead. What if the person asked for it? Should they be able to be 'killed' then?

You made a good point before, about how it won't bring back the people, it won't change things. But the biggest thing in my eyes - is why would you press charges against a rapist if you knew they'd never hurt you again? On top of that, it provides closure to the situation in my opinion. It also assures them that they've done all they can to keep this person from attacking another, though your statistics state the chances are low, I again bring up my point from above.

Originally Posted by Hyper Sonic

Just because you have the death penalty doesn't mean you have to use it

This is true, I like this.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Jack

BARBARIC!

But seriously, I'm shocked at the amount of people who agreed with that. I mean wow. What is the point of torturing and killing the criminals? Logically there isn't one other than "it would make me feel good/like justice had been served if they died/were caused a lot of pain" which is foolish because (a) by doing this to the criminal there will be many other people who will not feel good (eg his/her family and friends) and (b) making you feel good is not reason enough for killing anyone, or else I'd go outside right now and kill all the people who piss me off. After all it'd make me feel good and I'd feel that justice had been served.

In order to justify such a thing, you have to show that good can come of it that can not be reached by the current system in place. Torturing and killing someone gives them no opportunity to learn a lesson, in that case there is no need for the torture at least. Of course one could argue that torture makes it less likely they will reoffend after having been put through it but torture has been shown to have rather serious effects on the mind and depending on the severity they may not be capable of doing ANYTHING again (in which case they'd be an even greater burden on the state) or they may simply become more brutal in their methods.

Not to mention human slaughter houses would be rather easy to abuse, plus the very building of such structures would rather ensure their use would it not? The very need for such "houses" seems to imply you expect your methods to be used rather widely.



We're not having a discussion on airport security or national security, it really has no relevance to this discussion. I was just bayoneting the strawman so to speak.

Well, if they are not to be killed and just tortured, either the mental, physical scarring or both can be a good enough reminder not to do it again, as you'll be administered more pain. I wouldn't do this to all criminals and I'm sort of undecided on serial killers. On one hand, we know next to nothing about them physiologically or psychologically but on the other hand, they can do lots of damage. It does allow them to learn a lesson in as much as spanking a child does; do this and get hit/tortured, don't do it, get rewarded. True, they could become more brutal, that's always a possibility. If they are too mentally scarred to function, then the job is effectively done: they've been punished and not likely to need to do it again.

Your comment on many others not feeling good applies to any method you use. If it's a simple gun shot, hanging, injection, beheading, or locking up in jail, rehabilitation, etc..., some group won't be satisfied.

Yes, building human slaughterhouses would imply their use LOL. Oh yes, I do expect my methods to be used widely (be a dream come true if they were). Although, in some areas of the world that has people/activities that I do not approve of, I'd want more built there. Either, they work as a great fear tactic by the citizens knowing that the punishments are going to happen, or the punishments do happen (these citizens would likely be killed afterwards).

So, I guess they can function both as a method for punishment and a method to remove sub-human vermon from this planet. Haha, but I guess the airport security part was off-topic.

[Acheron]

Originally Posted by Hyper Sonic

Just because you have the death penalty doesn't mean you have to use it

But if you aren't going to use it, why have it?

[newbie552]

i aint in support of it at all

[guyofpain]

execution to rapist, murders.

Type of execution? Death..by firing squad...

if the man was innocent? opps....

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Gidig

You're good with sources- just thought I'd mention that.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Gidig

I also feel like, these statistics may not be entirely relevant, on the fact that - as you've stated I believe, why were they released? There's a certain type of people who were released, people who probably won't do it again. If they're some serial killer/serial rapist, they're not going to be let out, hence why they're still in jail, without the ability to reoffend.

Yeah, but you seemed to be implying we should execute every rapist and every attempted murderer from the part of my post you responded to.

Originally Posted by Gidig

And you could argue that at least they're in jail, which is true. But how much different is that versus dead? You as a person are basically dead. What if the person asked for it? Should they be able to be 'killed' then?

I think it makes a lot of difference to the criminals themselves, not to mention their familes and friends. I'm also against it if they ask for it for the same reason that I don't think we should kill every depressed teenager just because they ask for it: because they can get better and the criminals who feel so bad about their crimes that they want to die are surely in a better position than most to change.

Originally Posted by Gidig

You made a good point before, about how it won't bring back the people, it won't change things. But the biggest thing in my eyes - is why would you press charges against a rapist if you knew they'd never hurt you again?

The sense of justice, the sense of closure? Not everyone presses charges out of fear. There a a plethora of other reasons.

Originally Posted by Gidig

On top of that, it provides closure to the situation in my opinion. It also assures them that they've done all they can to keep this person from attacking another, though your statistics state the chances are low, I again bring up my point from above.

Prison equally provides closure and many victims might not wish to see the person killed for their crime.
However, lets suppose you're right about it providing more closure. Does it bring closure to the criminals family? The criminals friends? Or does it just breed resentment and create anger?

Originally Posted by guyofpain

if the man was innocent? opps....

Yeah it's always "oops" until it's you who is the innocent man being sentanced to death.

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

Well, if they are not to be killed and just tortured, either the mental, physical scarring or both can be a good enough reminder not to do it again, as you'll be administered more pain.

I think a stint in jail is quite a good reminder as it is. I've shown earlier in this thread that re-offence rates are quite low therefore it obviously still does its job.

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

I wouldn't do this to all criminals and I'm sort of undecided on serial killers. On one hand, we know next to nothing about them physiologically or psychologically but on the other hand, they can do lots of damage.

Yeah, though from what we do know about them it's certainly implied that they will not learn from torture. Well, certain types anyway.

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

It does allow them to learn a lesson in as much as spanking a child does; do this and get hit/tortured, don't do it, get rewarded.

For that to work you'd have to hand out "rewards" for good behaviour and I don't see why people should be rewarded for simply not breaking the law. And it's hardly in the same league, if anything your analogy more applies to imprisonment than torture. I think imprisonment can be analogised to spanking and torture more analogised to beating your kid against the kitchen table until he curls up he's unconcious. It's an excessive method of teaching a lesson.

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

True, they could become more brutal, that's always a possibility. If they are too mentally scarred to function, then the job is effectively done: they've been punished and not likely to need to do it again.

No, if they're too mentally scarred to function then (a) society has to support them for the rest of their lives which is draining on society (and it wouldn't just be a couple of cases with torture there would be A LOT of them) and (b) the system isn't doing it's job. I got the impression that you wished to inflict the pain and harm that the criminal had done back onto the criminal himself, if you reduce him to a drooling vegetable then the punishment is not proportionate to the crime.

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

Your comment on many others not feeling good applies to any method you use. If it's a simple gun shot, hanging, injection, beheading, or locking up in jail, rehabilitation, etc..., some group won't be satisfied.

But via the death/torture penalty you make more people unhappy than via imprisonment.

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

Yes, building human slaughterhouses would imply their use LOL.

Yes but imagine if they worked, not that they would but for the sake of argument, and people stopped committing the crimes in which they would be sent to the torture house for. Then they'd start using it for more minor crimes.

"Well they worked on rape, why not use them for shop lifting?"

Plus the very existant of government regulated torture facilities would be ridiculously easy for a government to abuse.

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

Oh yes, I do expect my methods to be used widely (be a dream come true if they were). Although, in some areas of the world that has people/activities that I do not approve of, I'd want more built there. Either, they work as a great fear tactic by the citizens knowing that the punishments are going to happen, or the punishments do happen (these citizens would likely be killed afterwards).

People and activities that you don't approve of? What would they be?

If they are punished and then killed that makes the whole idea that you're torturing them to teach them a lesson a contradiction. If you kill them straight after then they have no time in which to learn a lesson and certainly no time to implement said lesson.

[Gidig]

Originally Posted by Jack

Yeah, but you seemed to be implying we should execute every rapist and every attempted murderer from the part of my post you responded to.

Sorry if I made it seem this way, I probably did, but let me clarify my true feelings about this. I think, that in certain situations, mainly situations including rape and/or murder, are those that should be considered for capital punishment. If a guy had one thing where he supposedly touched another kid, and they weren't sure, or whatever, obviously you shouldn't go and kill him. But, if you have a guy that has brutally raped and murdered a woman. with full understanding of what he did, I don't see the point of just making him stay in jail for the rest of his life. There obviously would end up being borderline cases that it should be up to the judge/jury or whatever to decide the final thing.

I think it makes a lot of difference to the criminals themselves, not to mention their familes and friends. I'm also against it if they ask for it for the same reason that I don't think we should kill every depressed teenager just because they ask for it: because they can get better and the criminals who feel so bad about their crimes that they want to die are surely in a better position than most to change.

I wouldn't call jail much of a life. If they are in good mental condition, I think they should have the opportunity to choose to die. Like, a right to die sort of thing. I basically feel like it's a death sentence in a sense to be put in jail for a lifetime.
As for the friends and family, they'll unfortunately have to understand that this was the law, and your friend/family member broke it. And provide counseling for them if necessary.

The sense of justice, the sense of closure? Not everyone presses charges out of fear. There a a plethora of other reasons.

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. If someone is not afraid they still have other reasons to press charges, yes? People want justice, closure and other sorts. Some people don't consider jail to be justice and closure at all.
Basically meaning, that people aren't simply pressing charges to get back their loved one, or take the memory away.

Prison equally provides closure and many victims might not wish to see the person killed for their crime.
However, lets suppose you're right about it providing more closure. Does it bring closure to the criminals family? The criminals friends? Or does it just breed resentment and create anger?

If the victims wish to not see the person killed for their crime, they can step forward and say so, I feel it should be partially their decision too, and to be honest, I don't entirely know how the whole court process works, but if this is not the case now, I feel it should be.

How would it not bring closure to the criminals family? It's over, it's done. What more is there to say? If you think that this person is innocent, you're going to be working on that no matter which route you go. Your 'criminal' chose to hurt you, whether it was consciously or not. If they want to have resentment and anger, they can, I don't see why they should though, I think people would just blame it on capital punishment and not say that they are angry that their friend/family member did this crime.

[guyofpain]

Originally Posted by Jack

Yeah it's always "oops" until it's you who is the innocent man being sentanced to death.

I'd be dead if I did get setanced...so? Once I am dead...I wouldn't care cause i'm dead...and that stuff.

[Phin]

People have to realise it is not a punishment. It is a crime deterrent and a way of keeping dangerous criminals AWAY from society where they can do no harm. Do you think that others thinking of comitting crimes like that would be more apt not to do it if the consequence was death or a pampered life of free food, free shelter and free recreational activities, etc? Not to mention it is only the very worst who get the death penalty. The common murderer does not face it, no, the killer must slaughter their victim(s) in the most brutal was possible, kill as many as they can, and then eat the bodies, perhaps scattering the limbs about for others to enjoy as well. Oh and they also have to kill every single person of that particular race, religion, blood type.. you know, the works. Injection FTW.

[Gidig]

Originally Posted by guyofpain

I'd be dead if I did get setanced...so? Once I am dead...I wouldn't care cause i'm dead...and that stuff.

I do have to say, what about the years leading up to your death? Some people end up on death row for years and years.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Jack

I think a stint in jail is quite a good reminder as it is. I've shown earlier in this thread that re-offence rates are quite low therefore it obviously still does its job.

I never said that basic jailtime is ineffective. But, imagine the slaughter and torture houses: if basic jailtime is effective for most, then torture houses would be even more effective. There still is the chance that a few would be more encouraged to increase the brutality of their crimes, however, exceptions will happen in any system. Mine isn't perfect, I'll admit that but it comes pretty close.

Originally Posted by Jack

Yeah, though from what we do know about them it's certainly implied that they will not learn from torture. Well, certain types anyway.

It depends on which ones. "Successful" psychopaths and "unsuccessful" psychopaths have a difference in I believe their anterior hippocampus, which makes the unsuccessful ones physiologically worse at learning from fear or danger. However, this does not mean that serial killers, rapists, etc... are also like this. Some may be, but many would not be. After all, how could they go about and kill/rape so many people and still get away with it while keeping some track of the progress of the police or FBI.

Originally Posted by Jack

For that to work you'd have to hand out "rewards" for good behaviour and I don't see why people should be rewarded for simply not breaking the law. And it's hardly in the same league, if anything your analogy more applies to imprisonment than torture. I think imprisonment can be analogised to spanking and torture more analogised to beating your kid against the kitchen table until he curls up he's unconcious. It's an excessive method of teaching a lesson.

People already are rewarded for not breaking the law via negative reinforcment, which is not punishment. Look around today's society, negative reinforcment is at work throughout the legal system. LOL, I got a funny image of beating the kid on a kitchen table LOL... anyways, lol, it's only excessive if it's used in such a method as you described. The person would be awake or at least conscious during the torture. Torturing an unconscious person as their punishment is pointless.

Originally Posted by Jack

No, if they're too mentally scarred to function then (a) society has to support them for the rest of their lives which is draining on society (and it wouldn't just be a couple of cases with torture there would be A LOT of them) and (b) the system isn't doing it's job. I got the impression that you wished to inflict the pain and harm that the criminal had done back onto the criminal himself, if you reduce him to a drooling vegetable then the punishment is not proportionate to the crime.

Yes, I did wish to inflict the pain the criminal did back onto himself/herself. However, given the same administration of pain and damage, and same method, some may become a drooling vegetable, some may not. I guess that a suitable concept would be, apply the same damage, same method, etc..., but if they begin being too unresponsive, then you stop, hopefully in time so little excessive damage is done.

Originally Posted by Jack

But via the death/torture penalty you make more people unhappy than via imprisonment.

With imprisonment, the victim's families, relatives, friends, etc... get no closure; the victim is dead/scarred while the criminal is safely behind bars, being fed, interacting with others, etc... . With my method, there is closure: the criminal is either killed or he's experienced the damage, hopefully reduced to more or less a vegetable.

Originally Posted by Jack

Yes but imagine if they worked, not that they would but for the sake of argument, and people stopped committing the crimes in which they would be sent to the torture house for. Then they'd start using it for more minor crimes.

Oh, you don't think torture houses would work? I beg to differ, if you phyiscally punish a kid over and over, each time more harsher, then the kid is less likely each time to commit the same behavior. No, they wouldn't be used for minor crimes. These houses are meant to deliver the same physical damage that the criminal did. If they, say, stole a car, then these houses would not be used. That goes against the very basic nature of them. If it's shop-lifting, then how can you give the same physical damage back if none occurred in the first place? Unless of course you distort their entire purpose, then that could happen, although the same could be said for imprisonment; put criminals in there longer than they normally would be meant to serve.

Originally Posted by Jack

People and activities that you don't approve of? What would they be?

Mostly people who senselessly torture innocent animals (humans may be animals, however, they are not innocent) simply for the sake of it or for some twisted reason. For example, the sub-humans that torture dogs in order to make their meat tastier, or by making other dogs see their fellow companions tortured and killed, so they too can release more adrenaline and be tastier. I do not regard those individuals as being human by any stretch of the imagination. Or, in Indonesia, they dislocate the forearms or legs of dogs, tie them behind their back and put a can over their noses so they're easier to handle. They too are filth, no where near close to being a human, and therefore, no human rights apply to them. If I could, I'd break their legs, or possibly just cut them off, drag them into the houses and get rid of them. As a punishment, their wives or children who may be innocent, however, they have lived in the land of the sub-humans and are tainted. They wouldn't be tortured, however, they'd watch and possibly take a head as a souvenir. The people giving the torture would have a secret identity to ensure they weren't found. Although, even if they're not in these areas and still commit such atrocities, I still regard them as sub-human. However, humans torturing other innocent humans I do not regard as being sub-human, even if the victims were completely innocent. I'd probably approve of their methods, then since they violated the law, they'd meet my torture houses. But, this is only a dream, sadly, it's not real-life in these areas.

Originally Posted by Jack

If they are punished and then killed that makes the whole idea that you're torturing them to teach them a lesson a contradiction. If you kill them straight after then they have no time in which to learn a lesson and certainly no time to implement said lesson.

Hmm, perhaps. Although I suppose I could modify their regulations; if the torture doesn't work for a few times (I'd have to think of how many times for different crimes) and if they are too unco-operative to be studied on or refuse it over and over, then kill them.

[silentmuffin]

I am against the death penalty. Its standards and use varies widely across states, and it's been shown to be incredibly racist. Thousands of people have been wrongfully convicted and placed on death row, with some actually being executed before being exonerated of the charges against them. There are likely more innocent victims of the death penalty than we know of, because many people were convicted and executed before the use of DNA that would have cleared them.

As for whoever mentioned that death row inmates are "privileged", that is not the case. Every person convicted of a crime has the right to appeal. Those on death row end up dedicating their numbered days to fighting for an appeal - and wouldn't you? Some live in isolation, which may be safer but is in no way a "privilege".

Our prison system is called "Corrections" for a reason. It's supposed to be about rehabilitation. I can't say whether an individual deserves to die for his crimes or not. But our current death penalty is inefficient, ineffective as a deterrent, and highly prejudiced. I think at the very least, it needs some serious overhaul.

Originally Posted by Scout

People have to realise it is not a punishment. It is a crime deterrent and a way of keeping dangerous criminals AWAY from society where they can do no harm. Do you think that others thinking of comitting crimes like that would be more apt not to do it if the consequence was death or a pampered life of free food, free shelter and free recreational activities, etc?

The problem is that we've found it DOESN'T WORK as a crime deterrent. Having the death penalty has not decreased the amount of serious crime at all. People don't seem to care that the punishment might be death.

The same thing happened with public torture in England... it was originally used as a deterrent to scare the public so they wouldn't commit crimes. But the public loved it and treated it like a huge spectacle. It didn't decrease crime, it just created a society that reveled in schadenfreude.

[Grizabella]

There is also the issue of the extreme racism prevalent in death row. The death penalty is used disproportionally against minority groups, especially blacks. If we do agree that the death penalty is the proper way to deal with criminals, how do we avoid this problem?

[Hyper Sonic]

Originally Posted by silentmuffin

here are likely more innocent victims of the death penalty than we know of, because many people were convicted and executed before the use of DNA that would have cleared them.

It's not the 60s-80s you know. We have DNA evidence now and any death penalty law would have a grandfather clause allowing existing criminals not to be eligible for death. You can't cite new DNA evidence for crimes now, it's done as a matter of course now.

There is also the issue of the extreme racism prevalent in death row. The death penalty is used disproportionally against minority groups, especially blacks. If we do agree that the death penalty is the proper way to deal with criminals, how do we avoid this problem?

Aren't more criminals black? It would follow that if more black people are guilty of murders then more blacks would be killed. That is not racist unless there is a huge discrepancy

[Grizabella]

Originally Posted by Hyper Sonic

Aren't more criminals black? It would follow that if more black people are guilty of murders then more blacks would be killed. That is not racist unless there is a huge discrepancy

Apparently not:

U.S. Department of Justice statistics show that African-Americans constituted 48 percent of adults charged with homicide

[Phin]

Originally Posted by silentmuffin

The problem is that we've found it DOESN'T WORK as a crime deterrent. Having the death penalty has not decreased the amount of serious crime at all. People don't seem to care that the punishment might be death.

The same thing happened with public torture in England... it was originally used as a deterrent to scare the public so they wouldn't commit crimes. But the public loved it and treated it like a huge spectacle. It didn't decrease crime, it just created a society that reveled in schadenfreude.

Do you have statistics to back this up? Because from what I have researched, crime did indeed fluxuate in states in which the penalty was outlawed, and decrease in those of which inacted it.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by silentmuffin

The problem is that we've found it DOESN'T WORK as a crime deterrent. Having the death penalty has not decreased the amount of serious crime at all. People don't seem to care that the punishment might be death.

I think it's time for some sources.

Grizabella: That statistic that you showed doesn't mean the blacks don't commit more crimes. 48% may be more than other individual groups, and therefore can still be the group that commits most crimes. All this has shown is that it's not a plurality but still could be the most crime-ridden group.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Scout

Do you have statistics to back this up? Because from what I have researched, crime did indeed fluxuate in states in which the penalty was outlawed, and decrease in those of which inacted it.

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

I think it's time for some sources.

A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

FBI data shows that 11 of the 12 states without capital punishment in 2006 had homicide rates below the national average.

Source: Amnesty International

For 2007, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.5, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

Source: Death Penalty Information Centre

Nine of the 10 states with the highest murder rates in the country have the death penalty.

Source: Dallas News

"The view that the death penalty deters is still the product of belief, not evidence ... On balance, the evidence suggests that the death penalty may increase the murder rate."

states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states with the death penalty, even when comparing neighboring states.

Source: Huffington Post

Capital punishment cannot be statistically, morally or legally defended on the basis that it deters homicides.

Source: Huffington Post [II]

I did already give some of these sources further back in the thread. I'll reply to your rebuttal of my previous post tomorrow when I'm less tired.

[Pelios]

I'm in favour of the death penalty, in Mexico it's been considered for kidnap. It's such a common problem and people don't stop doing it after they serve their time in jail. That the goverment and the people are getting sick and tired of it. We are taking action and the goverment is now or I think approved it already with is a great releave.
I don't think its a big problem in the USA [kidnap] but if you lived in Mexico almost about every 5 secs. one gets kidpnap. Kidnappings are out of control in Mexico, and if family or friends lag in paying even small amounts they may be sent crudely amputated body parts as a sign of worse to come.
I think Mexico is 2 ranked in the world[Colombia 1]
In 2005, Congress abolished the death penalty and removed all references to it from the constitution.
But the kidnapping is seriously out of control and they are thinking of bringing it back.
So I am in favor of the capital punishment.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Gidig

Sorry if I made it seem this way, I probably did, but let me clarify my true feelings about this. I think, that in certain situations, mainly situations including rape and/or murder, are those that should be considered for capital punishment.

See where I have the problem there is with your usage of the word "or" which means that if anyone rapes or murders someone they should be executed which doesn't make sense for reasons I've already stated.

If a guy had one thing where he supposedly touched another kid, and they weren't sure, or whatever, obviously you shouldn't go and kill him. But, if you have a guy that has brutally raped and murdered a woman. with full understanding of what he did, I don't see the point of just making him stay in jail for the rest of his life. There obviously would end up being borderline cases that it should be up to the judge/jury or whatever to decide the final thing.

Well firstly life in jail rarely means life in jail. And secondly it’s cheaper to keep someone locked up for life than it is to execute them so really the death penalty has no edge on imprisonment when it comes to terrible cases.

Also a lot of people who comit the more gruesome and outrageous crimes are not mentally alright, so you're basically killing someone who has no control over themselves when a course of medication can make them "normal" again.

I wouldn't call jail much of a life. If they are in good mental condition, I think they should have the opportunity to choose to die. Like, a right to die sort of thing. I basically feel like it's a death sentence in a sense to be put in jail for a lifetime.

Life in jail rarely means life in jail therefore the chances are that they will be let out. Most people who wish to die who are in good health later are extremely happy that they did not go through with suicide therefore I assume that would apply to criminals as well

As for the friends and family, they'll unfortunately have to understand that this was the law, and your friend/family member broke it. And provide counseling for them if necessary.

Who would provide that counselling? The state? If so that would further increase the costs of the death penalty and place a further burden on the state that would not be incurred with simple imprisonment, many states are already having to consider abolishing the death penalty due to the cost anyway. If the family would have to pay for it they simply wont be able to afford it in most cases due to the low income backgrounds of death row criminals.

How would you expect the family to understand? That their brother/sister/father/mother has been killed by an illogical process which in other more enlightened countries has been abolished? I mean how easy is that to understand? Especially as families have the tendency to see their loved ones in the best light possible (i.e. innocent), to expect the families to understand is to ignore human nature.

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. If someone is not afraid they still have other reasons to press charges, yes? People want justice, closure and other sorts. Some people don't consider jail to be justice and closure at all.
Basically meaning, that people aren't simply pressing charges to get back their loved one, or take the memory away.

Some don’t consider it closure, most do. Jail is an effective agent of closure as much as the death penalty. I also don’t think that we should kill people just to make someone else feel better about themselves no matter how wronged they may have been.

If the victims wish to not see the person killed for their crime, they can step forward and say so, I feel it should be partially their decision too, and to be honest, I don't entirely know how the whole court process works, but if this is not the case now, I feel it should be.

I have no clue about the American legal system but in the English legal system the victim has pretty much no say in the sentence the criminals receive as the state prosecutes criminals rather than private individuals, hence why all criminal cases in the UK are called R V {whatever their name is}.

How would it not bring closure to the criminals family? It's over, it's done. What more is there to say? If you think that this person is innocent, you're going to be working on that no matter which route you go. Your 'criminal' chose to hurt you, whether it was consciously or not. If they want to have resentment and anger, they can, I don't see why they should though, I think people would just blame it on capital punishment and not say that they are angry that their friend/family member did this crime.

It wouldn’t bring closure as families tend to think their family member innocent; it also doesn’t bring closure because capital punishment turns criminals into victims. Also as previously stated it's upsetting for them that their loved one has been killed by a ridiculously arbitrary process. It's also upsetting that their loved one can be seen to change for the better in imprisonment and then is still put to death for a crime he comitted over a decade ago.

Allow me to just tackle all the points raised so far in favour of the death penalty as tackling it bit by bit is ineffective:

1. The death penalty costs less.
Status: Not true.

"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)."

Source: California Commission For The Fair Administration of Justice

The study examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that those cases will cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not existed as a punishment.

The 106 cases in which a death sentence was sought but not handed down in Maryland cost the state an additional $71 million. Those costs were incurred simply to seek the death penalty where the ultimate outcome was a life or long-term prison sentence.

Source: Death Penalty Information Centre
Other sources:
Amnesty International
High Costs of the Death Penalty

2. The Death Penalty Deters Criminals
Status: Not True

I think I've already provided enough sources and proof for this throughout the thread. I can provide it again if necessary.

3. Criminals reoffend after prison and the death penalty is necessary to protect citizens
Status: Not True

I've already given statistics which show only a very small number of released criminals reoffend. While it can be argued that the only way to make sure NO criminals reoffend is by killing them is that really a justification for killing a whole group of people because some may in the future comit a crime? No, of course not, that is absurd. I will also show (below) that crime is on the decrease so not only would the introduction of the death penalty be immoral it would also be pointless.

4. Crime is on the increase and we need a tougher punishment!
Status: Not True

Firstly, while it has already been shown the death penalty does not deter criminals it has also been shown that crime, at least in the UK, is actually on the decline rather than the increase. Psychological studies have pointed to the focus of the media on crime to be the main factor in it's perceived increases.

All BCS crime has fallen by 10% and recorded crime by 9% compared with 2006/07; and most crime types have shown decreases.

Crime has fallen by 48% since 1995

Source: British Crime Survey

5. The people who are on death row deserve it!
Status: Not true

Since 1973, 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.

Source: Amnesty International

Not to mention the large amounts of racism prevelant in sentancing people to death.

A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American.

Source: Amnesty International

6. The Death Penalty Brings Closure To The Victims Families
Status: Probably Not True

Nobody is going to get "closure" after the sorts of crime the people on death row have committed. Having your close family member killed brutally is something that is going to stay with you for the rest of your life and watching the killer die is not going to take that away. Many of the victims agree that the execution brought them no closure. Some families even wish the criminals death had been more painful, again that's not closure, for some it is massively anti-climactic to see someone die in a few seconds from lethal injection after the gruelling appeals process and being made to relive it by the media. However no psychological studies have been made on this so it's impossible to use "closure" as an argument either way.

There are other issues that I could bring up but they all touch on the issues I've raised there. I can't see how anyone could support it when the evidence is so obviously against it.

[rizz]

im against it. there is too many ppl who are sentince n turn out to b innocent (even 1 is too many) n yes...the gaverment havin the right to kill ppl is too much power.

there are too many reason y im against it that i just cant say them but im just glad we dont have it here is australia.

[Gidig]

Yes, murder and/or rape. If someone brutally murdered someone, like awfully, with no reason, etc, I think they should be executed. If they're mentally unstable, that should be brought up in the trial, and then considered when figuring out the punishment or whatever.

I also think that you should consider that your sources might be extremely biased sometimes, therefore not presenting the information in an unbiased way.

I'll elaborate more when I'm awake.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Gidig

Yes, murder and/or rape. If someone brutally murdered someone, like awfully, with no reason, etc, I think they should be executed. If they're mentally unstable, that should be brought up in the trial, and then considered when figuring out the punishment or whatever.

There is always a reason for murder, nobody ever murders someone for "no reason." Nobody ever does anything for no reason.

I also think that you should consider that your sources might be extremely biased sometimes, therefore not presenting the information in an unbiased way.

Well Amnesty International is pretty widely respected, as far as I know it's only been accused of incorrect and one sided reporting on the subject of Israel, the sources of their facts check out though. The California Commission was set up by the government and is about as legitimate as you're going to get, as is the British Crime Survey and "The Recidivism of Offenders" study. The Death Penalty Information Centre, while being anti-death penalty, has always presented true and accurate facts. Dallas news I've got no clue about, maybe it's biased maybe it's not. The Huffington post, while liberal, has facts that fit in with the other sources and make sense. While some sources may be slightly biased that has no bearing on the truth of the facts, it's difficult to provide pro-death penalty information as most of it has been discredited by academics. Even the American Bar Association is rather anti-death penalty and they surely should most want the death penalty (added money from taking death penalty cases) and are best placed to judge it.

[BrittneyNicole]

I'm torn on the idea of capital punishment. I think if the crime is super heinous, like multiple murders and multiple rapes and multiple molestations of a child, and it can be absolutely proven without a single doubt that the person did it, then I'm for capital punishment. If it can't be proven without a sliver of doubt, no matter how horrible the crime is, then they shouldn't be a victim of capital punishment.

[Gidig]

Originally Posted by Jack

There is always a reason for murder, nobody ever murders someone for "no reason." Nobody ever does anything for no reason.

By no reason I'm more referring to, the person didn't do anything, but the murderer just wanted to kill someone. So no outspoken reason I suppose you could say.

Well Amnesty International is pretty widely respected, as far as I know it's only been accused of incorrect and one sided reporting on the subject of Israel, the sources of their facts check out though. The California Commission was set up by the government and is about as legitimate as you're going to get, as is the British Crime Survey and "The Recidivism of Offenders" study. The Death Penalty Information Centre, while being anti-death penalty, has always presented true and accurate facts. Dallas news I've got no clue about, maybe it's biased maybe it's not. The Huffington post, while liberal, has facts that fit in with the other sources and make sense. While some sources may be slightly biased that has no bearing on the truth of the facts, it's difficult to provide pro-death penalty information as most of it has been discredited by academics. Even the American Bar Association is rather anti-death penalty and they surely should most want the death penalty (added money from taking death penalty cases) and are best placed to judge it.

I just find it to be biased, just in the manner that is presented. That's just how I feel.

[Something Clever]

I think those who kill in self defense should be let off the hook.
And those who kill for no good reason or commit a crime of passion should go to jail and/or get mental health help.
I don't think that killing someone after they're not able to harm somebody (i.e. once they're in jail) is right

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Gidig

By no reason I'm more referring to, the person didn't do anything, but the murderer just wanted to kill someone. So no outspoken reason I suppose you could say.

Then the murderer, most likely, would be mentally ill, no person of sound mind just goes and murders a complete stranger for the hell of it. In which case why kill the mentally ill when it's not their fault they have acted in such a way and when medication could allow them to be relatively normal?

Originally Posted by Gidig

I just find it to be biased, just in the manner that is presented. That's just how I feel.

Meh. As I say it's difficult to find good things to say about the death penalty because there really are very few good things to say hence why the sites can't really provide it. But also, as I said, just because it may have a bias one way or the other: Does that make the facts any less true? If you think the facts are wrong find some other studies that contradict them.
Though the California Commission, Recidivism study and The British Crime survey are all assuredly unbiased.
So you don't believe the facts or you just have an issue with how they're laid out?

[Kol]

So a killer can not be mentally sane to not kill as many people as he wish? Some kill because they want to kill doesn't make them sick!

[Jack]

Originally Posted by EDGE

So a killer can not be mentally sane to not kill as many people as he wish? Some kill because they want to kill doesn't make them sick!

Why would you want to kill some random stranger if you weren't sick? To kill a stranger generally requires some degree of mental illness. That or drug adiction, which also is not a good reason to kill them due to the cost and the ability of prison to reform people. And no, they get arrested and imprisoned, just not executed, not allowed to go and kill as many people as they wish.