Capital Punishment

[soundnthefury]

Time for an oldie but good. The subject: Capital Punishment. Thoughts? Comments? Favorite methods?

[droogsteve]

I'm in strongly in favor of it. There's nothing like good old fashioned vengeance to make the victim's family feel better. Alot of opponents to it use the same two arguments: That it costs more to execute a prisoner than to keep him in jail for life, and that it's not a deterrent to crime. Both of these problems are directly the fault of the ridiculously long appeals process. The costs they talk about are the legal fees paid to lawyers on both sides dragging the case through the various appeals courts year after year. There are inmates who have been on death row for twenty years!! Which brings me the next argument: the deterrent effect. Of course people don't take it seriously. They know that even if they receive the death penalty, there's a good chance they'll die of old age before they are executed. In the 1940's the average time between receiving the death penalty and being executed was five months!! If people know that if they are caught killing someone in June they'll be dead by Christmas, believe me, it deters crime. As for the method: I guess lethal injection is the most humane way. If I was being executed and had a choice, I would pick the firing squad. It's quick and there is little chance for error. Six rifle bullets to the heart means the doctor listening for a heartbeat afterward is pretty much a formality. It also seems to be a little more dignified and manly that lethal injection. That seems too clinical for how I would want to die, too much like a medical procedure gone wrong.

[Delta]

Dont think of it just as vengence Droog, but an excellent deterent. If someone is contemplating murder, they would be more willing if they knew they could get off with 10 years in prison, after parole. But if they knew they were going to "old sparky" or another form of death, they might reconsider. And that "Might" is worth it all.

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by Delta
Dont think of it just as vengence Droog, but an excellent deterent. If someone is contemplating murder, they would be more willing if they knew they could get off with 10 years in prison, after parole. But if they knew they were going to "old sparky" or another form of death, they might reconsider. And that "Might" is worth it all.

how much crime has the death penalty really detered?? obviously it hasnt stopped crime, but to totally stop crime would be impossible. i think, if technology was perfect and could convict a person without any kind of doubt or error, then maybe i would be for the death penalty, but until then, i am against it.

[Delta]

Well yah, crime will never stop. And we'll never know how many crimes didnt happen because the person thinking about it decided against because of the punishment involved. I will be the first to admit that Capital Punishment has had its bad times when innocent people have been put to death, but with Crime Investigators and all this new technology, we can pretty much find out with much certainty wether a person is guilty or not.

[Yoda]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, guys.
America has lost its sense of embarrassing and humiliating people that commit crimes. European countries (some) force people to stand out in front of the court house with signs saying what they did, and their "reason" for why. They have to greet people, ask for forgiveness, and open doors for them, clean up trash, etc. And there are guards that will and do enforce their punishment. But, that's only for minor crimes.
As for the more capital crimes, I'd say instead of letting them off with such ease (like you said, death row for dozens of years), I'd make those years as miserable as possible. Cruel and unusual punishment, whatever, they don't deserve fairness for killing people. If they have the indecency, lack of respect for human life, and arrogance to think that they are allowed to do such things to other human beings, what does that show? What do THEY have to show for themselves? However, by us killing them, we are showing people all over the country that we allow killing other people. Some example we're setting for others. We're showing the exact same lack of respect for human life that they did. But, the criminals' actions don't make them less human than anyone else, not you, not me, not Joe Schmoe, no one. They're still a human being, and we must respect that, if nothing else.

[Dumbass]

Ok whatever I'm getting too confused with my posts and I'll just say it. I'm Yoda, I just felt like posting under a different name. Sorry bout that, but I just got a little bored of being a Dumbass, and I was tempted to be a 900 year old green guy that kicks some major ass, so sorry for the inconvenience.

[Bergs]

I dont know why you think America should adopt a more european legal system. That would be just stupid. Didnt you hear about germany finding a terrorrist guilty of 3000+ deaths for his role in 9/11. HE GOT 15 years!!!!! FOR 3000 MURDERS. That is 1.825 days per murder. Anyway, I am very much in favor of the death penalty. Modern DNA testing is very accurate. Recently on Long Island where I live it has been used to clear four men convicted of rape and murder of a 17 year old. The way I see it, if DNA tests say you did it, we should fry/shoot/nuke you. I know that this is off topic a little but that is what drives me crazy about the whole OJ case.

1) HOW THE FUCK DO PEOPLE THINK THAT HE IS INNOCENT? There are people currently on death row that are guilty and have less evidence against them then he did.
2) How is a jury of 9 BLACKS 1 Hispanic and 2 whites a representation of your peers? Is America 75% black? NO. Is LA 75% black? No! How the prosecution agreed on that jury I will never know

[droogsteve]

Yoda/Dumbass, Respect has to be earned. Anyone showing such a lack of respect for human life that they would kill an innocent person forfeits the right to expect that respect from others. As for cruel and unusual punishment, I'm sure you're aware it's forbidden by the US Constitution, right? Life without parole is also a bad idea. There's no threat of further punishment. A guard or another inmate pisses you off? You might as well kill them, you're already locked up forever. Originally posted by Bergs
I know that this is off topic a little but that is what drives me crazy about the whole OJ case.

1) HOW THE FUCK DO PEOPLE THINK THAT HE IS INNOCENT? There are people currently on death row that are guilty and have less evidence against them then he did.
2) How is a jury of 9 BLACKS 1 Hispanic and 2 whites a representation of your peers? Is America 75% black? NO. Is LA 75% black? No! How the prosecution agreed on that jury I will never know The answer to your first question is: They don't. That jury knew perfectly goddamn well that he was guilty. The jury was packed with black women who basically said "That fucking white bitch and her Jew boyfriend got what they deserved." No human being could be so stupid they really believed he was innocent. Which brings us to your second question: That is directly the fault of the LA district attorney. The crime was commited within the boundries of the Santa Monica courthouse and should have been tried there. The jury pool would have been picked from residents of that area and would have included alot more non-black jurors. Instead, for completely inexplicible reasons, the DA's office agree to hold the trial in the downtown LA courthouse. They later claimed it was because it had more room for the press ect., a ridiculous excuse at best. Because the jury pool now had to be picked from Downtown LA instead of Santa Monica it was made up of mostly blacks. Bergs, you should read the book "Outrage" by Vincent Bugliosi. It showed the unbelieveable incompetence of the prosecution. Marcia Clark and Chris Darden both became famous and made millions off book deals when they should have been fired for incompetence.

[Delta]

Dont forget that they used thier majic weapon. The good 'ole RACE CARD. All they had to do was get one guy, it wouldnt even matter if he was involved in the case, and get him to say the big N word, and everyone would be yelling that OJ was being tried unjustly. God I hate the legal system sometimes.

[soundnthefury]

sure, they played the race card. but you have to admit that alot of it is a money issue. if oj simpson, the football player, had been orenthal simpsons, the bus driver, or other less fame filled job, he'd probably be chomping down on his last meal right now. basically, the money facilitated him getting lawyers to do whatever it took to get him acquited, which in this case, was putting race as a forefront issue. it's just a shame that the card still exists to be played.

[droogsteve]

You're right about that. There's a different standard for rich people. How about Ted Kennedy? On June 19 1969 he was vacationing on Chappaquiddick Island, Mass. After spending the day drinking, he left a party with a 19 year old female campaign volunteer. Shitfaced, he drove his car off a bridge into the water. After escaping the submerged car, he fled the scene, leaving the young woman to die. He didn't even report the incident until the next morning, nine hours after it happened. One of the divers that recovered the body estimated there would have been two hours worth of air in the submerged car. All Kennedy had to do was call the fire dept. and it's possible she would have lived. But then he would have had to explain why a married senator was out driving drunk late at night with a young female. So he left and started the cover-up, leaving her to die. Not only didn't he go to jail, he didn't even lose his position in the senate. It's disgusting.

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by droogsteve
You're right about that. There's a different standard for rich people. How about Ted Kennedy? On June 19 1969 he was vacationing on Chappaquiddick Island, Mass. After spending the day drinking, he left a party with a 19 year old female campaign volunteer. Shitfaced, he drove his car off a bridge into the water. After escaping the submerged car, he fled the scene, leaving the young woman to die. He didn't even report the incident until the next morning, nine hours after it happened. One of the divers that recovered the body estimated there would have been two hours worth of air in the submerged car. All Kennedy had to do was call the fire dept. and it's possible she would have lived. But then he would have had to explain why a married senator was out driving drunk late at night with a young female. So he left and started the cover-up, leaving her to die. Not only didn't he go to jail, he didn't even lose his position in the senate. It's disgusting.

rich get away with whatever they want.

[Dumbass]

I totally understand what you guys are saying. I just personally believe that every person, somewhere in their mind, there is some sense of hope that they can overcome whatever desire they had (killing, raping, etc.) I feel that every person can be helped, no matter who. I know, what about people like Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden? Not in this time or any time soon would anyone be able to reason with them, and I wholeheartedly support the fights against them. But I myself will never change my mind that every person has the right to life. The Constitution clearly states that. By killing murderers, you people are saying that those people are not human beings, and that's not right. By allowing people to be killed because of what they did, how are you NOT going against one of the most basic patriotic beliefs of your country? That is what I don't understand about how you can sit there and say "Yes, that person must be electrocuted, shot, gased, etc."

[droogsteve]

The Constitution also guarentees freedom. Does that mean we can't put people in jail either? When you are convicted of a felony, you forfeit certain rights. For example: a convicted felon is permanently stripped of his right to vote or own weapons. Just a little historical footnote: At the time the Constitution was written you could be hung for stealing a horse. So I think it's pretty obvious where our founding fathers would stand on the death penalty for murderers.

[Bergs]

Not only didn't he go to jail, he didn't even lose his position in the senate. It's disgusting.

Lousy democrats

At the time the Constitution was written you could be hung for stealing a horse. So I think it's pretty obvious where our founding fathers would stand on the death penalty for murderers.

Awesome point droog. The constitution applied literally today is not how it was intended to be applied back then. Personally I think some punishments are not strict enough in this country. Take for instance rape. Rape is a horrible crime but the punishment is what? 1 year in some cases?

As Chris Rock once said, "Rape is worse than murder. We are going to murder saddam hussein, but we aint gonna rape him. That would be horrible!"

[Nocturnal]

For it, currently it is more expensive than keeping them in prison though because of the huge appeals process.

I do beleive that it should only be used in cases where there is no doubt.

Also so that nobody gets all high and mighty about what the death penalty is for, it is not a deterent. It is just basic revenge. Personaly I don't have a problem with that, but don't glorify the death penalty as some highly moral action. It is just revenge


Also at the time the constitution was written people could OWN OTHER PEOPLE AND BEAT/KILL ETC. THEM. Our forefathers were brillant in their own right for their hand in our government but bringing up old laws and punishments does not help the argument.

[soundnthefury]

i'm still in the process of confirming what exactly i think about the the death penalty, but one does have to admit that there is at the very least a slight hypocrisy in the government proving how important human life is by killing someone.

[Dumbass]

If the Constitution shouldn't be literally translated, then why hasn't it changed its wording of that phrase? You still haven't proved that he doesn't have the right to life. Instead you've stretched the meaning of it to fit your view. It doesn't work that way.

[shade]

I totally agree droog.

Finally back to an issue we can agree on =P. Death sentences shouldnt be allowed to be appealed unless there is strong and clear new evidence.