Do you support the death penalty

6845 Views 189 Replies 26 Participants Last post by fire_mat99, Jan 17, 2005

fire_mat99

Discussion Starter · Jan 12, 2005

Do you support the death penalty yes or no

I would say terrorist and serial killer are not humans and yes I support death penalty or harsh for them

Now no I do not support torture or the death penalty on criminals the jails and hospital will take car of that

And no I do not support harsh for them

21 - 40 of 190 Posts

LANMaster

· #21 · Jan 12, 2005

Only for the guilty.

Problem is, too many innocent people are convicted and sentenced to death. :down:

So, in cases other than the most certain of guilt, (multiple witnesses, videotape, DNA, etc) I am against the death penalty.

For instance, Scott Peterson should NOT get the death penalty. There's really no doubt in my mind that he did it, and the jury agreed, but there were no witnesses, and to me, that leaves a sliver of a shadow of a doubt. He should get life in prison without parole. That way, if new evidence exhonorates him, he won't already be 6 feet under ground.

My apologies for my answer being so Americentric, but I plead ignorance to British law. Sorry.

hermes

· #22 · Jan 12, 2005

Dont apologise LANMaster, we are all a bit confused too.

One argument against the death penalty that I keep thinking of is that when I see press photographs of Ian Huntley (double child murderer) sat in his open sided cell looking at a blank wall with a look of despair on his face. It warms my heart. I think of him still sat there in 20 years time looking at that same wall, then I think of all the holidays, nights out, nights in, beers with friends etc that I will enjoy over that same period. I hope it gives him enough time to mull over his decision to kill those children and what the consequences have been. Death would have been too quick for him.

LANMaster

· #23 · Jan 12, 2005

hermes said:
fire_mat99, how do you define terrorist?

The way I define it is simple.

Anyone who deliberately targets an innocent in an effort to cause political change or vengeance.

valley

· #24 · Jan 12, 2005

I voted yes for terrorist, serial killers and criminals. But only if there is forensic evidence that proves guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

LANMaster

· #25 · Jan 12, 2005

Good point, Hermes. :up: How certain is Huntley's guilt?

dugq

· #26 · Jan 12, 2005

ChrisJones said:
Hi Dugg,

You raise some good points there...

Firstly on the death penalty issue, I think a jury would understand that if they were to find someone guilty on the evidence presented but there was an element of doubt, the judge would not impose the death penalty. Conversely I think they would also understand that if there was overwhelming evidence of the accused persons guilt (e.g. a video showing the accused committing the crime) that they would be willing to accept the death penalty.

But the jury need to find the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt if after doing so the judge were not to enforce the death penalty he would either be directly contradicting the jury, or acting unreasonably. Or consider an appeal which upheld the guilty but no death penalty, the same judges would be saying that there was a reasonable doubt and that there wasn't. Don't get me wrong, i know what your saying, but from the practical standpoint I really can't see how it could work.

ChrisJones said:
However I accept your point that in the event of there being a miscarriage it would be rather hard to acquit someone of a death penalty, hence why I think it should only be used in the most severe crimes.

As you say sentencing is done on the seriousness of the crime, I've come up with a few examples and which sort of sentence should be applied. I stress these are only MY opinions.

#1 A man is killed in a park there are no witnesses, the accused is found through a series of evidence trails and circumstantial evidence, on the balance of evidence the jury finds the defendant guilty, however I feel that in this sort of situation the death penalty should not be applied because there is an element of doubt preventing the use of the Death Penalty.

#2 The accused is caught on camera picking a fight with an old man walking down the street, there is no provocation, yet the accused beats the man to death for no apparent reason. The accused is not under the influence of any substance. The entire crime is caught on CCTV, the accused shows no remorse for his crime. IMO on this occasion the death penalty should be used, the accused has shown no remorse for the crime, he attacked a frail old man for no reason whatsoever.

OK so those may be a little over-simplified but they show that there different situations deserve different levels of punishment.

I think we need to seperate two issues. Sentencing on the seriousness of the crime is a workable policy but would lead to the innocent being convicted, so to my mind is unacceptable. Sentencing on the strength of evidence, makes sense intuitively, but could not work in practice IMO.

ChrisJones said:
As for Ian Brady I think he should be allowed to kill himself, he should be put into a padded room with a blunt knife and left to it. After all he is costing the UK taxpayer thousands of pounds to maintain in prison, if he was left to get on with it we'd all be better off.

I see where your coming from but personally I think that would be to easy for him

ChrisJones said:
Personally I think the criminal justice system in our country is a joke. There are no deterrents for crime.

A friend and I were walking home after a night out in Bournemouth, we were attacked by a gang of nine youths of varying in age between 17 and 19 years of age, for no other reason than they had decided the car park we were walking through was theirs (that's what they told the police!) and no one else could walk through it. Luckily all this was caught on camera, and my friend managed to grab the coat, which contained his wallet and driving license, off one of them when they did a runner when the cops arrived. I was quite badly hurt as I'd been set upon by five of them, and not even Rocky Balboa can dodge five punches thrown at the same time.

From the CCTV the police were able to identify ALL of the attackers who were all known to the police previously and all of whom were known to have violent tendencies. Upon the police rounding them up they were all duly charged with varying degrees of assault, possessing weapons, assaulting a police officer and various other offenses. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to press charges against the youths below 18, irritating but OK. However the other got taken to court duly found guilty and with the exception of the one who attacked a female police officer were all let off with between 40 and 90 hours of community service. where's the justice there? I spent five weeks in hospital with broken ribs, a fractured skull, broken jaw and cuts and bruises all over the place. I got a measly 482 pounds from the criminal compensation board, despite my injuries being worth well over three grand. I lost over four grand in lost earnings (at the time i was a freelance contractor).

Sorry I've just realised how much I've been ranting on. I'll stop now. However perhaps you can better understand my feelings now?

First, sorry about the encounter in the car park, you have my sympathy. I completely understand your feelings, and I would be the first to say we should have higher sentencing for violent crime. I have a lot of time for the zero-tolerance idea and I think it is disgusting that you would get a higher sentence for bank robbery than for murder. Having said that, in the murderers eyes I don't think that the death penalty is a tougher sentence than life (and i mean life) in prison.

See less See more

fire_mat99

Discussion Starter · #27 · Jan 12, 2005

I agree with the death penalty for terrorists, serial killers and general criminals i.e. Murderers, Serial rapists and Serial child molesters, I do not think first time rapists and child molesters should face the death penalty as everyone, no matter how abhorrent their crime, deserves at least one chance to prove they can change.

Yes terrorists, serial killers and most rapists do kill in the end anyay so yes .now criminals would be any thing like gangster , robbery , B&E , assault, despute,domestic so on where a person was killed..

Most criminals can learn from punishment but terrorists, serial killers and most rapists are so disturbed that punishment does not compute and has to be in for life or get the death penalty or they will do it again..

Now if a person has mental illness he or she has problems and needs help and traament programs help. Now if a person is intox or high on drugs and kill some one he or she not all there and can't think straight ..

So I would think terrorists, serial killers and most rapists should get life or get the death penalty or they will do it again

valley

· #28 · Jan 12, 2005

ChrisJones said:
Personally I think the criminal justice system in our country is a joke. There are no deterrents for crime.

I think its the same way here too, Chris. The justice system had turned into the victims enemy and justice is hard to find sometimes!

A friend and I were walking home after a night out in Bournemouth, we were attacked by a gang of nine youths of varying in age between 17 and 19 years of age, for no other reason than they had decided the car park we were walking through was theirs (that's what they told the police!) and no one else could walk through it. Luckily all this was caught on camera, and my friend managed to grab the coat, which contained his wallet and driving license, off one of them when they did a runner when the cops arrived. I was quite badly hurt as I'd been set upon by five of them, and not even Rocky Balboa can dodge five punches thrown at the same time.

From the CCTV the police were able to identify ALL of the attackers who were all known to the police previously and all of whom were known to have violent tendencies. Upon the police rounding them up they were all duly charged with varying degrees of assault, possessing weapons, assaulting a police officer and various other offenses. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to press charges against the youths below 18, irritating but OK. However the other got taken to court duly found guilty and with the exception of the one who attacked a female police officer were all let off with between 40 and 90 hours of community service. where's the justice there? I spent five weeks in hospital with broken ribs, a fractured skull, broken jaw and cuts and bruises all over the place. I got a measly 482 pounds from the criminal compensation board, despite my injuries being worth well over three grand. I lost over four grand in lost earnings (at the time i was a freelance contractor).

Sorry I've just realised how much I've been ranting on. I'll stop now. However perhaps you can better understand my feelings now?

I bet there are a lot of people who feel the same way you do.

I've lost a lot of faith in the prison system myself. I think it fails to do a thing other than harden criminals.

I think the death penalty is a good deterrant and that it should be used a lot more often than it is. Prison is not a big enough deterrant since the statistics show that most criminals re-offend after release.

dugq

· #29 · Jan 12, 2005

valley said:
I think the death penalty is a good deterrant and that it should be used a lot more often than it is.

Do you have any evidence that the death penalty is a good deterrant?

Since the death penalty has led to the killing of innocent people, if it was used more often, wouldn't more innocent people die?

Mulderator

· #30 · Jan 12, 2005

dugq said:
A lot of people say that it should not be used unless it is an open and shut case. But, legally speaking, you are either guilty or not guilty. To have the death penalty in clear cases but imprisonment in others would mean three classifications, not guilty, guilty, and really-guilty. From a legal and from a practical point of view, that is unsustainable. For example, if a judge were to decide that somebody found guilty was not guilty enough to face the death penalty would that not be an admittance of reasonable doubt?

Also, heres a quick run down of the UKs most famous killers

Harold Shipman, probably killed over 200 people, killed himself while serving life

Fred West, unknown amount of victims, but at least 10, killed himself awaiting trial

Michael Robert Ryan, shot 17 people in Hungerford, shot himself before being arrested

Ian Huntley, the Soham killer, attempted suicide while in prison

Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, currently serving life in a mental institution, has gone on record to say that he wants to die.

Why give these people what they want?

So I think what you are recommending, dugg, is we give them a life sentence and just leave a gun in their cell! That would save taxpayers millions!

dugq

· #31 · Jan 12, 2005

Chris had the idea of a blunt knife, I think I may be able to go along with that, guns are for kitties.

valley

· #32 · Jan 12, 2005

dugq said:
Do you have any evidence that the death penalty is a good deterrant?

Its common sense. Make the death penalty mandatory for rapists or pedophiles do you think will seek out help to control their urges rather than act on them?

Does that make sense to you at all, Dugg?

Since the death penalty has led to the killing of innocent people, if it was used more often, wouldn't more innocent people die?

If that happened, which it probably would, I believe in the greater good if the justice system. Overall, I think it would hugely reduce crime and save more innocents from being murdered or raped than the amount of innocents falsely put to death.

Thats just the way I feel about it.

valley

· #33 · Jan 12, 2005

dugq said:
guns.......

care to rephrase that?

I changed my mind...I dont really care to have it in one of my posts.

dugq

· #34 · Jan 12, 2005

valley said:
Its common sense. Make the death penalty mandatory for rapists or pedophiles do you think will seek out help to control their urges rather than act on them?

Does that make sense to you at all, Dugg?

Well no it doesn't actually.
Do serial killers seek help to control their urges in countries or states which have the death penalty for muder? Do such countries or states have lower cases of murders? Some quick facts

From DETERRENCE and the FBI UNIFORM CRIME REPORT 2003

The two states with the most executions in 2003, Texas and Oklahoma saw increases in their murder rates from 2002 to 2003. Both states had murder rates above the national average in 2003: Texas - 6.4, and Oklahoma - 5.9. The top 13 states in terms of murder rates were all death penalty states.

The gap between the cumulative murder rates of death penalty and non-death penalty states actually widened in 2003, from 36% in 2002 to 44% in 2003. The murder rate of the death penalty states increased from 2002, while the rate in non-death penalty states decreased.

valley said:
If that happened, which it probably would, I believe in the greater good if the justice system. Overall, I think it would hugely reduce crime and save more innocents from being murdered or raped than the amount of innocents falsely put to death.

Thats just the way I feel about it.

First, I find it a little bit unsettling how you are can trade lives so easily. The killing of innocent people is murder, whether it is by the state or the individual. Since there is no evidence that it would decrease crime you are proposing that we should murder innocent people (bad enough) without any benefit (worse)

See less See more

valley

· #35 · Jan 12, 2005

dugq said:
you are proposing that we should murder innocent people (bad enough) without any benefit (worse)

I proposed no such thing.

dugq

· #36 · Jan 13, 2005

You propose a law which you know will result in the deaths of innocent people without providing any evidence that it would of benefit

Mulderator

· #37 · Jan 13, 2005

Hey val--the problem with the death penatly as a deterrant argument is that it is NOT a deterrant to the types of crime that people are put to death for (i.e., the heinous crimes). In fact, that is the whole point of the death penalty is that the act was so callous and vile, that it is devoid of all humanity. These people do not sit there in a rational manner and think to themselves, "Hmmm, if I rape this woman, I may be put to death--I better not." The thought of being caught or punished never enters their mind at that moment.

America has some of the worst crime statistics in the world (especially violent crime) for industrialized nations yet it is one of the few that have the death penalty--how does that compute?

If the death penalty were a deterrant, our crime rates should be the lowest in the world. Death penalty as a deterrant argument was debunked 30 years ago.

I don't give a damn (oops!

) personally, if they kill some of these animals that commit these heinous crimes, but as a practical matter is costs us far more to put someone to death than it does to house them for 40 years. And believe it or not, most of the prison inmates actually have a code of ethics--rapist, pedophiles, etc. are despised and the life of a person in prison for those types of crimes is a living nightmare. Put them to death and you'll do them a favor.

Finally, as an insider to the legal system let me tell you it is far from perfect and I really don't believe that you'd ever find a way to make sure that someone was actually guilty of committing a crime short of their confession. Even eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable. I can't tell you how many times I've heard completely different stories from two people seeing an incident. And its not like they are bias--I am talking about two independent witnesses to an event that are just recounting what they saw or think they saw or heard. Just today I took a deposition of a witness that swears he saw the plaintiff in the cross-walk by herself while she and her boyrfriend plus another witness both say they crossed together. How do you see one person and not the other?

The answer is the mind can play tricks on you--especially in a stressful situation.

See less See more

valley

· #38 · Jan 13, 2005

Mulder said:
Hey val--the problem with the death penatly as a deterrant argument is that it is NOT a deterrant to the types of crime that people are put to death for (i.e., the heinous crimes). In fact, that is the whole point of the death penalty is that the act was so callous and vile, that it is devoid of all humanity. These people do not sit there in a rational manner and think to themselves, "Hmmm, if I rape this woman, I may be put to death--I better not." The thought of being caught or punished never enters their mind at that moment.

America has some of the worst crime statistics in the world (especially violent crime) for industrialized nations yet it is one of the few that have the death penalty--how does that compute? If the death penalty were a deterrant, our crime rates should be the lowest in the world. Death penalty as a deterrant argument was debunked 30 years ago.

very well then. How bout the death penalty as the way of preventing future crime? A rapist gets what, 5 years? How many women will be spared if he is put to death?

If not prevention...how bout old fashioned justice for the victims?

rapist, pedophiles, etc. are despised and the life of a person in prison for those types of crimes is a living nightmare. Put them to death and you'll do them a favor.

I do NOT approve of the torture or brutilization of ANY human being no matter WHAT they have done. That rapists and pedophiles are made to suffer for years on end in prison at the hands of other inmates is NO comfort to me.

Mulderator

· #39 · Jan 13, 2005

valley said:
very well then. How bout the death penalty as the way of preventing future crime? A rapist gets what, 5 years? How many women will be spared if he is put to death?

Well that is a much better argument--especially for pedophiles because the statistics show they are incapable of being rehabilitated. However, the better answer to that is simply put them in prison for life--you get the same result.

valley said:
If not prevention...how bout old fashioned justice for the victims?

That to me is the best argument for capital punishment. Family members of victims of violent homicides get a certain degree of closure and satisfaction with the death of the perpetrator--the old "eye for an eye" idea of justice. If someone killed one of my children, I'd want the SOB killed too. As such, while you can do nothing for the victims, you can do something for the family members.

I do NOT approve of the torture or brutilization of ANY human being no matter WHAT they have done. That rapists and pedophiles are made to suffer for years on end in prison at the hands of other inmates is NO comfort to me.

Well then by that logic they should be given a choice--death or life in prisonment. Most would choose life in prison, I suspect.

valley

· #40 · Jan 13, 2005

Mulder said:
-the old "eye for an eye" idea of justice.

You said it, not me!!!! I didnt dare!

Well then by that logic they should be given a choice--death or life in prisonment. Most would choose life in prison, I suspect.

so if they choose prison...doesnt this only perpetuate more crime?

21 - 40 of 190 Posts